On Jan 5, 2006, at 4:21 PM, Dr. Ernie Prabhakar wrote:
Welcome to the list; I hope the rest of you were able to get your
message, since you don't appear to be subscribed yet.
I wasn't really planning to.. but what the hell, I'm subscribed to so
many lists that one more doesn't matter much anyway :)
On Jan 5, 2006, at 12:55 PM, Bob Ippolito wrote:
From what I understand, you're missing the point. The key is that
the <SCRIPT> tag can be used to load JAHAH across domains, thus
the payload absolutely must be JavaScript of some sort. JSON is
the simplest subset of JavaScript to produce, so it's the only
good choice here.
Ah, okay. One man's bug is another's feature. :-)
Note that it's really only used as a wire protocol, and it's the only
sensible one given the constraints. You could come up with a custom
JavaScript response all day long, but you might as well use something
simple and standard.
YAML is technically a superset of JSON these days, but YAML is
extremely difficult to parse and good parsers aren't available
everywhere. JSON is extremely simple to parse, and good parsers
are available pretty much everywhere. As far as Python goes, YAML
is pretty much dead in the water.
Interesting -- I've heard similar rumblings from the Ruby
community. So, has anyone done a JSON<->XOXO bridge?
I'm not terribly sure why you'd want to do it, the use cases are
pretty different and they're definitely not 1:1 on features. JSON
has no canonical hyperlink representation, and XOXO has no canonical
representation for null, numbers, booleans, or string:value maps.
JSON is the plist equivalent for the web. In fact, it's awfully
close in syntax to old-style NeXT plists (minus timestamps and data).
-bob
_______________________________________________
microformats-rest mailing list
[email protected]
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-rest
