Hi, I really went through e-mail discussions on this. My proposal is to use json as data model of paws protocol issued by paws, in case that wg addresses the trend of APIs of browser venders and keep some discovery mechanisms open for any extra works. At the same time, we have some problems to satisfy the needs to reuse ws schema encoded by traditional devices, which will issue a separate wg document for xml encoding standard for xml supporting industries.
The reasons doing this are not technical issues, just we have broad requirements to reuse TSWS generally for communication purposes, including smart objects, ad hoc use, browser API, wifi broadband, cellular etc. Best regards, Zhu Lei -----邮件原件----- 发件人: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] 发送时间: 2012年9月14日 7:40 收件人: Zhulei; [email protected] 主题: RE: JSON vs XML There was not much feedback on the list about the objections to the different encodings. We seem to agree that: xml may not be the right choice because the current trend for APIs in the browsers is towards json; and if we choose json, as some data structures PAWS may reuse are encoded in xml, a json encoding for those would need to be defined (which is not impossible, but requires some extra work) The latter of the two objections will not be valid when we'll send the document to iesg, as all the encodings will have to be in place at that time. So we are left with practically one question: do we want to follow the current industry trend and use json, or do we want to stick with xml. A significant number of people prefer to specify both encodings, but that may not be agreeable with the iesg. This is where we stand now, deadlocked on this not critical issue. Any suggestion on how to move forward would be appreciated. - Gabor From: ext Zhulei [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 12:59 AM To: Bajko Gabor (Nokia-CIC/SiliconValley); [email protected] Cc: Zhulei Subject: Re: JSON vs XML Hi, Actually, no so much comments on this choosing. I just do not think xml is a problem to embedded devices, in fact xml is well supported by different sort of devices in my view. The issue may be some power and bandwidth constrained devices (e.g. some smart objects) to support txt based information. Let’s ignore this case since we are not to define binary encoding at the moment. Best regards, Zhu Lei 发件人: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] 代表 [email protected] 发送时间: 2012年9月8日 4:41 收件人: [email protected] 主题: [paws] JSON vs XML The chairs discussed with the AD, and we came up with the following action plan to drive this wg to a consensus on the json vs xml encoding: we’ll collect an objections list for json and one for xml, listing what is seen wrong/problematic with that encoding. The chairs and the wg will go through that list and see if the objections are valid, then decide which encoding has more support and choose that one. If we end up with good objections list for both, we may choose to support both encodings, as that list will justify the decision once the document advances to the iesg. I went through the emails and I found so far the following valid objections: xml: too verbose, may be a problem to be supported in embedded devices current trend for APIs in the browsers is towards json json: some data structures are encoded in xml, a json encoding for those would need to be defined (which is not impossible, but requires some extra work) If you have additional objections, send them to the list asap. - Gabor _______________________________________________ paws mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
