Re: [json] Re: Universal Binary JSON Specification
- Mark Joseph scripsit:
> I think all of this binary JSON work is great. But can you guysI realize there's been a big burst of traffic around this topic,
> move it to another group. The fact is that binary JSON is not JSON.
> I joined this group to work on JSON issues not on some new binary
> protocol which is not JSON. It is not fair to the group to added
> discussions that really belong elsewhere.
and I've been one of the significant contributors (in volume, at
least). But really, the list was essentially idle for three months
before this, and the two previous major discussions were about a new
Java implementation (irrelevant to anyone not using Java) and corner
cases of JSON's interaction with Unicode (irrelevant to everyone but
implementers, it seems). People seem to post to this list because they
want a diverse audience, and readers are expected to ignore what doesn't
(Perpetuating meta-discussion is a bad idea, so that'll be my last post
on this thread.)
Is not a patron, my Lord [Chesterfield], John Cowan
one who looks with unconcern on a man http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
struggling for life in the water, and when cowan@...
he has reached ground encumbers him with help?
- 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 +-