Subject: [Json] Proposal to move forward on acceptable roots

From: "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 16:13:37 +0000

One way we could go on the topic of what goes in the root that would work
for me would be for us to add a non-normative section to I-JSON giving
protocol design advice, and move the issue of potential incompatibility of
non-[object,array] roots to that section.

Into that section, we can also put some suggestions about how to encode
integers, floats, and dates in strings, how to do forward-compatibility
with objects (MUST ignore what you don't understand), and whatever other
pearls of wisdom we come up with.

Yes, I know that will make the document take longer, and open up other
areas for us to argue about.

-- 
Joe Hildebrand

---

From: Tim Bray <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 09:15:53 -0700

This doesn’t sound insane. ​I’ll try, over the next few days, to draft such
a section.  If nothing good emerges, I think staying with the current
language is still a good outcome.

On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 9:13 AM, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> json mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>

-- 
- Tim Bray (If you’d like to send me a private message, see
https://keybase.io/timbray)

---

From: Jacob Davies <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 10:25:53 -0700

I think non-normative (but strong) advice to use an object at the
top-level and have must-ignore semantics (unless you have a really
solid reason for doing otherwise) is an excellent idea. In particular
advising the use of strings for 64-bit integers and pushing for
ISO8601 for dates/times could help library authors converge on the
encodings they use, which would definitely help interoperability. You
could also include advice on binary encoding (presumably base-64). Not
that JSON is a great format for binary data, but sometimes that's what
you've got.

On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Tim Bray <[email-masked]> wrote:
> This doesn’t sound insane. I’ll try, over the next few days, to draft such a
> section.  If nothing good emerges, I think staying with the current language
> is still a good outcome.
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 9:13 AM, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)
> <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 21:49:11 +0200

On 30 May 2014, at 19:25, Jacob Davies <[email-masked]> wrote:

> presumably base-64

(Make that base64url.  Old base64 for legacy only.)

Grüße, Carsten

---

From: Nico Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 15:29:58 -0500

+1

---

From: Matthew Morley <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 17:18:37 -0400

+1

-- 
Matthew P. C. Morley

---

From: Tim Bray <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 15:57:44 -0700

OK, I’ve got a i-json-01 in progress at
http://www.tbray.org/tmp/draft-ietf-json-i-json-01.html which I think
captures all the consensus calls and also includes a “Protocol-design
Recommendations” section and drops the array-or-object top-level constraint.

Diffs at
http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=http://www.tbray.org/tmp/draft-ietf-json-i-json-00.txt&url2=http://www.tbray.org/tmp/draft-ietf-json-i-json-01.txt