On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Carsten Bormann <cabo(_at_)tzi(_dot_)org> wrote:
On Jul 30, 2013, at 09:05, Martin Thomson
<martin(_dot_)thomson(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
wrote:
What would cause this to be tragic, is if publication of this were
used to prevent other work in this area from subsequently being
published.
Indeed.
As Paul and I have repeatedly said, CBOR is not trying to be the final,
definitive, binary object representation for all purposes. It was written
to some specific objectives, clearly stated in the document. It is being
proposed for standards-track because specific ongoing work that works well
with these objectives will benefit greatly from being able to reference a
common specification. If the objectives for other work are different, that
work may benefit from using a different format, existing or newly designed.
I do not expect you to succeed in being the final definitive format.
But if you are not prepared to try then I don't want the result.
You keep talking about your design requirements, but where are the use
cases that drive them? When I am discussing a specification I am always
referring to illustrative use cases that motivate the requirements. When
you are discussing your spec you wave away every objection by saying it
isn't a design requirement but I have never seen you give the rationale.
Coming back to Martin's comments about the type system. I think that is
what JSON does so well. It has exactly as much type system as is useful and
no more. The developers realized that there was no need to distinguish
lists and sets because both are going to serialize as lists on the wire.
--
Website: http://hallambaker.com/