- From: Peter Saint-Andre - Filament <peter@filament.com>
- Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 14:25:43 -0600
- To: "Peintner, Daniel" <daniel.peintner.ext@siemens.com>, Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>, Public Web of Things IG <public-wot-ig@w3.org>, "public-wot-wg@w3.org" <public-wot-wg@w3.org>
Yes, there are many factors and multiple tradeoffs. A major focus for JSCN is the ability to properly handle JWTs in a lossless way. For non-security use cases, CBOR itself is close to ideal. Peter On 5/2/17 6:29 AM, Peintner, Daniel wrote: > Hi Peter, > > Thank for your pointer. > > JSCN (ore respectively CBOR) is definitely one candidate. > > Having said that, there are other formats we might want to look at > (Smile, EXI4JSON, ...). > > I looked at results/examples referenced in JSCN [1] which show JSON (318 > bytes) to JSCN (187 bytes). I checked EXI4JSON which gets down to 139 > bytes (see demo at [2]). > > So size is one aspect but there are many more aspects we should take > into account. > > -- Daniel > > [1] > https://quartzjer.github.io/JSCN/draft-miller-json-constrained-notation-00.html#rfc.section.6 > [2] http://exificient.github.io/javascript/demo/processJSON.html > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *Von:* Peter Saint-Andre - Filament [peter@filament.com] > *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 27. April 2017 23:16 > *An:* Kazuyuki Ashimura; Public Web of Things IG; public-wot-wg@w3.org > *Betreff:* Re: [wot-ig/wg] minutes - 26 April 2017 > > On 4/27/17 1:40 AM, Kazuyuki Ashimura wrote: > > <snip/> > >> should start activity to look at concise descriptions for TD > > Regarding concise descriptions, you might want to look at some work my > colleague Jeremie Miller is doing on JSON Constrained Notation: > > https://github.com/quartzjer/JSCN > > We're intending to begin standardization of this soon. > > Peter > > -- > Peter Saint-Andre > https://filament.com/ > >
Received on Tuesday, 2 May 2017 20:26:19 UTC