On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 11:00 PM, Tim Bray <tbray@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I listed some arguments against this in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2013Oct/0041.html and at the moment I still believe them. Is there new information?On top of that, I have no fear of anyone trying to change JSON in the future; they would be resoundingly ignored by the community of implementers. I speak as one who would love to add built-in date/time literals but know that it won’t happen. -T
As was previously established, many implementations already support a list of values so as to enable use in append only logs. I have added length encoded blocks so as to avoid repeatedly base64 encoding binary blobs.
The _javascript_ world can ignore me, I try my best to ignore the _javascript_ world. But if people are implementing one of my protocols they will find that while it will work perfectly OK with JSON, implementations will be more efficient if they support JSON-A or JSON-B.
Suggesting that people will never change a spec is silly. Of course specs will be changed.
Website: http://hallambaker.com/