On Jan 5, 2006, at 8:24 PM, Dr. Ernie Prabhakar wrote:
Hi Bob,
On Jan 5, 2006, at 6:00 PM, Bob Ippolito wrote:
http://opendarwin.org/~drernie/C499496031/E20051026153908/index.html
Well you didn't say you were speaking of something other than the
mainline XOXO :) Given that extension, yes, there is certainly a
complete mapping from JSON to XOXO... not quite the other way
around though. JSON has no representation for data, date, or set
and list-of-dicts would be lossy.
I think there's too much TMTOWTDI in your spec though.
One of the things about microformats (in case you hadn't learned
how the game is played here :-) is to try to follow existing
conventions as much as possible. In this case, I started with Mac
OS X plists, and moved to XML Schema Datatypes:
http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#built-in-datatypes
Yes, it is somewhat complex, but it is a well-defined standard.
I'm certainly open to doing something simpler, but I'd want to have
some reasonably strong precedent, so it doesn't just become
personal taste. I do like the idea of defaulting to a generic,
high-precision 'number' class, especially since it is easy to
specialize using multiple classes.
I personally like the Mac OS X plist typing (number, data, etc.),
but I don't know if that's normative enough to drive a web standard.
Personally I think it should be the simplest thing that could
possibly work. Isn't that the idea behind microformats? If someone
wanted to play the XML game, they would...
-bob
_______________________________________________
microformats-rest mailing list
[email protected]
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-rest
