On 2018-07-28 16:52, Ranando King wrote:
Why not just use DataURL syntax, something like this:
```js
{
"field1":
"data:json/bigint,12345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890",
...
}
```
This way, even as other objects pop up to be serialized, all that would be needed is another mime type in the
format "json/<typename>". I could even see letting the "<typename>" portion
hold the non-lowercased, original class name to make it even faster to deserialize such fields without knowing
all possible mime types in advance. Still 100% compatible with existing JSON. Still 100% human
readable/writable. Very easy to implement, and self consistent.
I think the issue is rather: What problem do we want to solve?
It is pretty obvious that there is no "perfect" solution.
XML proves that there is no need for explicit type information in an
information exchange format. Most sophisticated systems map keys in some way
making explicit type information redundant. That JSON do have a set of
distinct data types is great, but extending that type scheme outside of the
original JavaScript core, IMO only creates problems. Nobody (in their right
mind) would even think of designing a typed format where everything from a byte
to BigDecimal would be represented as a single type.
Anders
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss