Re: [json] Re: Universal Binary JSON Specification
- On Mon, 2011-09-26 at 18:17 +0000, rkalla123 wrote:
> So to your question specifically, yes the intent is that any stringAlso presumably it's perfectly acceptable to encode numbers <= 64 bits
> you encode as a huge number (> 64-bits) is written in adherence with
> the original JSON spec so it can be processed in exactly the same
in an "H" value.
- 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 +-