Re: [json] Re: Universal Binary JSON Specification
- On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 6:35 PM, Stephan Beal <sgbeal@...> wrote:
> Hi! Is it still this doc:Sorry, ignore the dumb question. i was still waiting on my netbook do load
that doc when i wrote that, and just now saw that the top of that doc
references the latest draft.
----- 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 +-