Re: Universal Binary JSON Specification
- Thank you John for the feedback.
Anyone else have any thoughts? Stephan, Don, Tatu, Milo?
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, John Cowan <cowan@...> wrote:
> rkalla123 scripsit:
> > I was hoping to get some feedback on a few changes I have planned for
> > the Universal Binary JSON Specification (http://ubjson.org) Draft 9
> > before I made them official.
> They all look fine to me.
> We do, doodley do, doodley do, doodley do, John Cowan <cowan@...>
> What we must, muddily must, muddily must, muddily must;
> Muddily do, muddily do, muddily do, muddily do, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
> Until we bust, bodily bust, bodily bust, bodily bust. --Bokonon
- 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 +-