Re: serializing datamodels

Hey there,

I discovered similar problems when I was trying to implement the submit 
tag of VoiceXML [1]. Here the specification reads

"When an ECMAScript variable is submitted to the server its value is 
first converted into a string before being submitted. If the variable is 
an ECMAScript Object the mechanism by which it is submitted is not 
currently defined. The mechanism of ECMAScript Object submission is 
reserved for future definition. Instead of submitting ECMAScript Objects 
directly, the application developer may explicitly submit properties of 
Object as in "date.month date.year"."

Questions to this list were not conclusive. Therefore, I decided to be 
as flexible as possible and allowed to configure the indented behvior.  
It would be good to have a common definition over the different 
standards which would make it easier to combine e.g. VoiceXML submits 
with an SCXML backend.

Best,
Dirk

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/voicexml20/#dml5.3.8



Am 03.04.2013 22:33, schrieb Jim Barnett:
>
> It occurs to me that we probably should say something about how the 
> ECMAScript and XPath datamodels are serialized when using <send> or 
> <invoke>.  So, a couple of questions:
>
> 1. Is it correct to say that atomic ECMAScript types are serialized as 
> strings?  I’m thinking of saying something like:  a) atomic types 
> should be serialized as strings b) complex types should be serialized 
> as JSON if the processor supports it c) the serialization of objects 
> that can’t be serialized as JSON (and of all objects in processors 
> that don’t support JSON) is platform-specific
>
> 2.Is the serialization of XML so obvious that we don’t need to say 
> anything? Or do we say “Values from the XPath datamodel should be 
> serialized as strings”?
>
> -Jim
>