For me the biggest thing JSON lacks is the ability to add comments. --- R. Mark Volkmann Object Computing, Inc.
> On Jul 25, 2018, at 4:26 AM, Isiah Meadows <isiahmead...@gmail.com> wrote: > > IMHO, I'd like to see four things: > > - Native JSON multi-object support > - Binary data support that doesn't require delimiters > - Native JSON property streaming support > - Spec-level binary JSON support > > Apart from that, I don't really see anything JSON lacks. > > ----- > > Isiah Meadows > m...@isiahmeadows.com > www.isiahmeadows.com > >> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 12:43 PM, Carsten Bormann <c...@tzi.org> wrote: >> >>> On Jul 24, 2018, at 18:29, Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren....@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 2018-07-24 17:09, Carsten Bormann wrote: >>>>> On Jul 24, 2018, at 16:31, Anders Rundgren >>>>> <anders.rundgren....@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> JSON isn’t really a topic for tc39 only but since the IETF consider JSON >>>>> "done", an open question is where possible future developments should >>>>> take place, >>>> No, that is not the question. >>>>> including dealing with new data types like BigInt. >>>> That, indeed, is a question for JavaScript. It has nothing to do with >>>> “developing” JSON; JSON can already represent BigInt just fine. >>> >>> Serializing BigInt as JSON Number is the solution then? >> >> For applications that make good use of BigInt, I would say so. >> So you wouldn’t use JSON.parse, but a new interface that preserves integers >> beyond 2**53 as BigInt (or possibly even all integers; I don’t want to >> design this on a napkin) >> >>> There are a few argument against that: >>> >>> - This would typically require low-level parsers to always rely on a >>> BigNumber type. Oracle's JSON-B does exactly that. Currently there is no >>> BigNumber type in JS or .NET. >> >> There is no need for the above interface to handle floating point numbers >> (NR2/NR3). >> >>> - There is quite a bunch of IETF standards defining JSON structures. As far >>> as I know none of them exploit JSON outside of its original, JS-induced >>> limitations. >> >> Maybe the IETF was smart enough to stay in the confines of I-JSON… >> >> But really, JSON never had that particular limitation. A JSON-based >> ecosystem that wants to enable the use of JavaScript JSON.parse does, as >> Twitter found out when they were sending their perfectly valid JSON to >> JavaScript applications. >> >>> - Although BigInt is a very welcome addition to JS, usages are few and >>> typically confined to specific things like crypto or money. Creating >>> backward incompatibility for that is IMO counterproductive. >> >> Right, so maybe the motivation for touching JSON really isn’t that massive. >> >>> - Serializing BigInts as a string does not break anything. >> >> After JSON.parse, they are text strings then, not BigInts. >> Generally, there is the expectation that, for an interesting set of x, >> JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(x)) == x >> Hence the exception when you pass BigInt to JSON.stringify today. >> >>>>> Personally I think the JSON WG should be rebooted but apparently I’m >>>>> rather alone with that idea. >>>> Indeed. >>> >>> That might be the case but it doesn’t solve the problem. >> >> It also doesn’t create the problem of damaging JSON by instability. >> >>>> Frankly, JSON, together with the JavaScript-induced limitations in its >>>> ecosystem as documented in RFC 7493, is not a very brilliant data >>>> interchange format. >>> >>> It seems to work well in spite of not being brilliant. >> >> Right. As do bicycles. Until you need to transport a sofa or cross the >> Atlantic. >> JSON is the right tool for a large number of jobs. >> >>> Yes, CBOR is great https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7049 :-) >> >> Can’t disagree here :-) >> >> Grüße, Carsten >> >> _______________________________________________ >> es-discuss mailing list >> es-discuss@mozilla.org >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > es-discuss@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
