*
- One of our goals is to strive to lower the cost and complexity for
device manufacturers. This lowers the barrier for building a robust
ecosystem.
- To reduce complexity and cost for device makers, supporting 1 encoding
is better than both, as Brian points out. WiFi access points that "just
work" anywhere in the world serves as a good model.
- There's a trend for APIs on the web towards JSON (Twitter, FourSquare,
Facebook, Google, etc.). One of the major reasons is that developers
(client-side) prefer it for its simplicity:
- Representation closely matches most data models (nested lists and
maps)
- Simple-to-use libraries exist for all major languages/platforms
- Don't need a tool chain to work with the data, as is typically
needed for XML.
Apparently, the efficiency gains of JSON also matter to the scalability of
serving systems.
- At the end of the day, it's the data model that matters, rather than
the encoding. We (Google) are actually neutral on XML vs JSON, as long as
we're clear on what device makers want. It would be good to get feedback
from device makers (especially of embedded devices) regarding experiences
supporting XML vs JSON.
Don, can you elaborate on the types of devices that already support XML?
*
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Weixinpeng <[email protected]> wrote:
> Considering of the design of database discovery protocol, the LoST
> protocol may be used and LoST is based on XML, so I think XML may be
> preferred.****
>
> ** **
>
> --Xinpeng Wei****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf
> Of *Rosen, Brian
>
> *Sent:* Friday, August 17, 2012 9:26 PM
> *To:* Manikkoth Sajeev; [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]
>
> *Cc:* [email protected]
> *Subject:* Re: [paws] XML schema versus JSON, vCard & iCal****
>
> ** **
>
> I don't really care whether we use json or xml as a matter of protocol
> design or implementation, but I am a big fan of reusing standards rather
> than defining new ones, and I would not want to see the choice of json mean
> we then decide to roll our own versus using existing standards based on the
> idea there is no json representation of an existing standard. So, if
> choosing json means folks feel free to ignore existing xml based standards
> such as xCard and LoST, then I would not want to use json.****
>
> ** **
>
> I would prefer to not have "both", because of interoperability
> complications. If there is rough consensus for both, then I would assert
> that all servers have to implement both and the client can implement either.
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> There are json validators, so I don't think that is a big deal. ****
>
> ** **
>
> My experience in protocol design on the Internet is that decisions made
> solely or even largely because of compactness advantages rarely are good
> choices. If you like json because it is smaller, then I believe you need a
> much better reason. Binary doesn't work for me, at all. I have been
> involved in big binary vs text wars in protocol design. Text wins, binary
> loses, in my opinion.****
>
> ** **
>
> Brian <as individual>****
>
> ** **
>
> *From: *Manikkoth Sajeev <[email protected]>
> *Reply-To: *Manikkoth Sajeev <[email protected]>
> *Date: *Thu, 16 Aug 2012 22:37:38 -0400
> *To: *"[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "Rosen, Brian" <
> [email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "
> [email protected]" <[email protected]>
> *Cc: *"[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> *Subject: *Re: [paws] XML schema versus JSON, vCard & iCal****
>
> ** **
>
> Hi,****
>
> ****
>
> Can it not be both JSON and XML supported? I would vote for that. Future
> implementations may prefer *XML as it is generic, omni present, easy to
> understand and validate.* For compactness may be a *binary xml option*can
> also work. JSON I think will necessitate implementation to be native
> Java and may not be as friendly with other implementation languages.****
>
> ****
>
> *Best Regards,*****
>
> *Sajeev Manikkoth
> Mobile: +918792292002
> Email: [email protected]
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/mksajeev*****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> *To:* [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
> *Cc:* [email protected]
> *Sent:* Friday, 17 August 2012, 4:55
> *Subject:* Re: [paws] XML schema versus JSON, vCard & iCal****
>
>
> We have not heard any objections for using JSON encoding instead of XML.
> Therefore, let's go for JSON, and close this thread.
>
> - Gabor
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
> ext Rosen, Brian
> Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 3:14 PM
> To: 'Vincent Chen'; 'Peter Stanforth'
> Cc: '[email protected]'
> Subject: Re: [paws] XML schema versus JSON, vCard & iCal
>
> json is okay with me.
> I'd prefer an ISO time stamp rather than a time in seconds since epoch.
> It's very easy to parse, and its simpler to use and debug. Don't care a
> whole lot about that
>
> Brian <as individual>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vincent Chen [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 06:04 PM Eastern Standard Time
> To: Peter Stanforth
> Cc: Rosen, Brian; Teco Boot; Benjamin A.Rolfe; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [paws] XML schema versus JSON, vCard & iCal
>
> XML vs JSON
>
> Between XML and JSON, JSON messages are more compact and easier to process
> (parsing, synthesis). As clarification, JSON does not require JavaScript or
> a Browser. It is a text-based representation of data that is language
> independent, yet well-matched to all major languages. JSON-handling
> libraries exist for numerous languages (see of http://json.org/) and seem
> to be reasonably light weight.
>
> Timestamps
>
> As for timestamp specifications, should we consider just using seconds
> since the UNIX Epoch (1970-01-01T00:00:00Z)? This would eliminate the need
> for datetime-string parsing on devices, assuming devices already have
> native libraries that provide time in this format. Is that a valid
> assumption? Of course, this is less human-readable....
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 6:49 AM, Peter Stanforth <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
> Whenever we built mobile devices we never dealt with IETF, in our
> sensor
> days even an IP stack was a challenge,so I would defer to the device
> guys
> on that one.
>
> On MonAug/13/12 Mon Aug 13, 9:30 AM, "Rosen, Brian"
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Our experience in the IETF over many years is that economizing message
> >size and compromising utility and security in search of efficiency of
> >implementation on small devices is a poor trade off. I am not
> advocating
> >being wasteful of resources, but I don't think we should seriously
> >consider the overhead of XML or json to be significant.
> >
> >Assuming a json library can be loaded on a small device is reasonable.
> >
> >Brian (as individual)
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> >From: Peter Stanforth [mailto:[email protected]]
> >Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2012 07:13 AM Eastern Standard Time
> >To: Teco Boot; Benjamin A.Rolfe
> >Cc: [email protected]
> >Subject: Re: [paws] XML schema versus JSON, vCard & iCal
> >
> >Not all masters run over the core network.
> >Some of the Use cases have a master talking to another OTA
> >We should not assume that all Masters are attached to utility power
> so we
> >should be sympathetic to processing energy use also.
> >
> >On SatAug/11/12 Sat Aug 11, 5:30 AM, "Teco Boot" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>Op 10 aug. 2012, om 18:10 heeft Benjamin A. Rolfe het volgende
> >>geschreven:
> >>
> >>> Compactness of messages is important, but it is also important (to
> me
> >>>at least) to be realizable in an implementation with limited
> resources,
> >>>such as embedded devices in what are now popularly called "M2M"
> >>>applications. A lot of these devices could use IP all the end to
> end,
> >>>but may have a very compact, simple stack and applications (i.e. no
> >>>browser). Is JSON typically implemented when there is no browser?
> >>>Would it be hard to do in a resource constrained device (i.e. where
> we
> >>>talk about memory size in Kilo-bytes still).
> >>
> >>In use cases and requirements document, there are no requirements for
> >>protocol performance. I guess OS/IP/TCP/TLS code size supersedes
> needs
> >>for JSON or XML.
> >>
> >>Same for timing: TCP/TLS connection setup will take more than the
> PAWS
> >>message exchange, I think. This may be of importance when using
> satcom
> >>links.
> >>
> >>Because PAWS runs between master and database, over core network,
> >>performance is not our primary concern. But as always, it is good to
> keep
> >>an eye on efficiency.
> >>
> >>Teco
> >>
> >>> Thanks
> >>> Ben
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> We had a discussion on XML vs. JSON. I prefer the one with most
> >>>>compact messages.
> >>>>
> >>>> On vCard and JSON: what is the status of "A JavaScript Object
> Notation
> >>>>(JSON) Representation for vCard"?
> >>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bhat-vcarddav-json-00
> >>>>
> >>>> On valid times: can we use same format as certificates? They have
> >>>>similar simple requirements: valid notBefore& notAfter.
> >>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3280#section-4.1.2.5
> >>>>
> >>>> Teco
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> paws mailing list
> >>>> [email protected]
> >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> paws mailing list
> >>> [email protected]
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>paws mailing list
> >>[email protected]
> >>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >paws mailing list
> >[email protected]
> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
>
> _______________________________________________
> paws mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> -vince
>
> _______________________________________________
> paws mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
> _______________________________________________
> paws mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
>
> ****
>
--
-vince
_______________________________________________
paws mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
