Mark Baker wrote: > On 12/22/05, Bill de hÓra <dehora@eircom.net> wrote: > >>I've been following this thread, and believing myself to be in target >>audience for such principles. I guess my question is this: why would I >>follow this principle? > > > I was thinking the same thing too, and noticed that - just to pick one > important consideration - there's no discussion of the security > implications of Turing-complete or near-Turing-complete languages. > > [...] > [2] http://www.crockford.com/JSON/js.html > [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JSON Jon, Gavin, Mark, thanks guys. These are good links Mark (I mentioned security in passing and in fairness, I've seen Dan C noodle on the security aspects of ajax on #swig). Going back to what Gavin said, it seems there may be a useful principle here, and it could be set in the context of web publishers and consumers - that data formats ranging from brain-dead to less than ec-logic* are easier to re-use and build momentum over seems credible and more useful than saying "worse is better". It might be that this is a principle which is important, but subtle (won't be the first). cheers Bill * languages which logicians might describe as 'weak'. I think the current RDF semantics are in the ec class.Received on Thursday, 22 December 2005 21:46:35 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:10 UTC