On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 11:00 PM, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> wrote: > I listed some arguments against this in > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2013Oct/0041.html and at the > moment I still believe them. Is there new information? > > On top of that, I have no fear of anyone trying to change JSON in the > future; they would be resoundingly ignored by the community of > implementers. I speak as one who would love to add built-in date/time > literals but know that it won’t happen. -T > The JavaScript variant may stay the same but people will add features if they find they are necessary to meet their requirements. As was previously established, many implementations already support a list of values so as to enable use in append only logs. I have added length encoded blocks so as to avoid repeatedly base64 encoding binary blobs. The Javascript world can ignore me, I try my best to ignore the javascript world. But if people are implementing one of my protocols they will find that while it will work perfectly OK with JSON, implementations will be more efficient if they support JSON-A or JSON-B. Suggesting that people will never change a spec is silly. Of course specs will be changed. -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/
Received on Thursday, 28 November 2013 04:55:29 UTC