W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > December 2013

Re: [Json] Consensus on JSON-text (WAS: JSON: remove gap between Ecma-404 and IETF draft)

From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 20:23:06 -0600
Message-ID: <CAK3OfOjYt0jV24YY1PvG_sMEvZjZAiHQ7SPLJ_0RFhHmO8nV7g@mail.gmail.com>
To: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
Cc: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, JSON WG <json@ietf.org>, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, "Matt Miller (mamille2)" <mamille2@cisco.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>, es-discuss <es-discuss@mozilla.org>
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 6:24 PM, John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> wrote:
> Nico Williams scripsit:
>> "datetime" and such are interpretations of more basic datatypes,
> An interval of time is not a string, any more than a number is a string.
> They are both *representable* by strings, but everything is: you can
> represent a human being or the planet Saturn by a string.

Interval definitely sounds like a tuple, but, sure, JSON texts can
represent arrays as text...

>> they belong in pre-agreed/documented schema rather than on the wire.
> The decision to do so is arbitrary.

Of course it is.  How much to describe on the wire vs. schema is... a
continuum.  Given the JSON we have though... it's best to deal with
datetime via schema.

My point was and still is that the one thing that's sorely missing is
an indefinite-length unescaped binary data encoding, and which is not
nearly as complex, notionally, IMO, as other types.

Received on Tuesday, 3 December 2013 02:23:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:57:00 UTC