Re: [json] Universal Binary JSON Specification
- Martin Cooper scripsit:
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 6:15 AM, rkalla123 <rkalla@...> wrote:Fortunately, these points don't affect the actual protocol,
> > 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.
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.
- On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 9:42 AM, rkalla123 <rkalla@...> wrote:
> Stephan,For what it is worth, I also consider support for only signed values a
> 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.
-+ Tatu +-