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

Re: [json] Re: Universal Binary JSON Specification

Expand Messages
  • John Cowan
    ... I realize there s been a big burst of traffic around this topic, and I ve been one of the significant contributors (in volume, at least). But really, the
    Message 1 of 76 , Sep 28, 2011
      Mark Joseph scripsit:

      > I think all of this binary JSON work is great. But can you guys
      > 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.

      I realize there's been a big burst of traffic around this topic,
      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
      interest them.

      (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?
      --Samuel Johnson
    • 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
        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.