Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [json] Universal Binary JSON Specification

Expand Messages
  • John Cowan
    ... Fortunately, these points don t affect the actual protocol, just the explanation. -- LEAR: Dost thou call me fool, boy? John Cowan FOOL: All thy other
    Message 1 of 76 , Sep 21, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Martin Cooper scripsit:
      > On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 6:15 AM, rkalla123 <rkalla@...> wrote:
      > > Hey Guys,
      > >
      > > I am currently working on what I hope to be a 1:1 binary JSON specification (no custom data types supported like BSON or BJSON, just binary representations of the core JSON spec) and would appreciate a few extra eyes on it if anyone had interest in reading through the 2nd draft:
      > >
      > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/12SimAfBVcl8Fd-lr_SSBkM5B_PyEhDRfhgu1Lzvfpfw/edit?hl=en_US
      > >
      >
      > A couple of things from a quick skim of the document:
      >
      > * "As with JSON, all Strings are encoding in UTF-8"
      > The *default* JSON encoding is UTF-8, but JSON itself may be
      > represented using UTF-8, UTF-16, or UTF-32.
      >
      > * "Arrays are a flat list of same-typed values"
      > There is no requirement in JSON that the values be same-typed.

      Fortunately, these points don't affect the actual protocol,
      just the explanation.

      --
      LEAR: Dost thou call me fool, boy? John Cowan
      FOOL: All thy other titles http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
      thou hast given away: cowan@...
      That thou wast born with.
    • Tatu Saloranta
      ... For what it is worth, I also consider support for only signed values a good thing. -+ Tatu +-
      Message 76 of 76 , Feb 20, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 9:42 AM, rkalla123 <rkalla@...> wrote:
        > Stephan,
        >
        > No problem; your feedback are still very applicable and much appreciated.
        >
        > The additional view-point on the signed/unsigned issue was exactly what I was hoping for. My primary goal has always been simplicity and I know at least from the Java world, going with unsigned values would have made the impl distinctly *not* simple (and an annoying API).
        >
        > So I am glad to get some validation there that I am not alienating every other language at the cost of Java.

        For what it is worth, I also consider support for only signed values a
        good thing.

        -+ Tatu +-
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.