Re: [json] Universal Binary JSON Specification
- On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 8:17 AM, Tatu Saloranta <tsaloranta@...>wrote:
> **Correct, format does not aim for minimal complexity of implementations.
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 10:44 AM, Stephan Beal <sgbeal@...>
> > Thank you for that. Smile's requirement that impls be capable of
> > "shared strings" seems a bit draconian to me, though. That adds
> ...This is an optional feature for encoder for what it is worth.But for the decoder it's required, or at least that's how i understood the
----- stephan beal
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- 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 +-