RE: Totally non-conformant JSON hack

re: IBM
My feelings exactly which I why I wrote my own.  Its not that hard really
... but thats exactly the reason we should try to stick to one ...
But PATENTED ??? give me a fracking poke in the eye.  I didnt want to deal
later with the knock at the door from the MIB ...

Fortunately at Balisage this year I heard they were putting it into the
public domain basically giving everyone a non-exclusive license to use it
for anything.   Its not my favorite format as it combines the data model of
Object and Member into one entity ... but I'm willing to overlook that if we
could all just agree to stick to one ... even if its not the best.   I'm
willing to change over to JSONx too once I'm convinced there's no MIB's
coming for me.



----------------------------------------
David A. Lee
dlee@calldei.com
http://www.xmlsh.org


-----Original Message-----
From: xproc-dev-request@w3.org [mailto:xproc-dev-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Norman Walsh
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 10:37 AM
To: XProc Dev
Subject: Re: Totally non-conformant JSON hack

David Lee <dlee@calldei.com> writes:
> Not worried about niceness or elegance ... but am concerned about using a
> 'convention' that will have some lifetime.
> Have you considered JSONx which is (has been?) introduced to the public
> domain (after being patented by IBM) ?

Patented!? F*CK YOU, IBM.

> It would be nice if the community could narrow down rather then
proliferate
> on if not a 'standard' atleast a 'common' way of translating JSON to XML
in
> a lossless format.

Sure. I'm happy to switch to a different XML encoding if that's the
right thing to do.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh
Lead Engineer
MarkLogic Corporation
Phone: +1 413 624 6676
www.marklogic.com

Received on Monday, 10 October 2011 15:11:23 UTC