Carsten Bormann <cabo@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > The Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) is a data format > whose design goals include the possibility of extremely small code > size, fairly small message size, and extensibility without the need > for version negotiation. These design goals make it different from > earlier binary serializations such as ASN.1 and MessagePack, or other > binary serializations that may be created in the future. I have a small problem with this abstract: the three goals that it picks out are satisfied by MessagePack better than CBOR, since MessagePack is simpler so will need even less code. As far as I can tell what makes CBOR different from MessagePack is support for richer types, especially strings. Streaming support is useful but it wasn't one of the original goals. Regarding PHB's criticisms of complexity: Type tags don't really need to be part of the serialization format: they can be encoded in a simpler format by the application. The advantage of doing so would be a more direct translation into typical dynamic language data structures, and better interop with JSON. The disadvantage is slightly more verbosity. You would need a clear tagging convention to replace the syntactic framework. Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch <dot@xxxxxxxx> http://dotat.at/ Forties, Cromarty: East, veering southeast, 4 or 5, occasionally 6 at first. Rough, becoming slight or moderate. Showers, rain at first. Moderate or good, occasionally poor at first.