[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xri] XRD and JSON
Adding it to the XRD spec is not an option, normative or not. The spec is done. If you or your employ thinks there is value in interop using a JSON flavor, you should write a spec and pick the best avenue to publish, seek feedback, and finalize. This can be another TC draft (though the overhead vs. benefit is very low), an IETF individual I-D published as informational RFC, or just a spec published on a wiki. The only important part is making sure you seek wide feedback. After that it’s all silliness. EHL From: Will Norris [mailto:willnorris@google.com] On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Scott Cantor <cantor.2@osu.edu> wrote: > JsonML does a far better job than some other similar utilities I've seen, I think the document is the natural representation. A simple layer of code certainly, I wasn't meaning to suggest a departure of any kind from how XRD is defined today. I've been quite upfront from the beginning of my involvement with this TC that I view XRD (as it's specified) solely as an XML format, and if you want something else, then do it yourself. Well, now Google is sort of doing it ourselves, and we figured that if others end up wanting to do the same, it might be good to have agreement on what that JSON format looks like. That could just be a whitepaper, a best practice guide, or whatever. It certainly doesn't have to be a product of this TC, I just thought I would see if it was anything folks had any interest in it. -will |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]