On Jan 5, 2006, at 6:00 PM, Bob Ippolito wrote:
On Jan 5, 2006, at 5:30 PM, Dr. Ernie Prabhakar wrote:
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).
Hmm, not sure what happened to my previous message. Anyway,
hopefully this will answer your question:
http://www.opendarwin.org/~drernie/xoxo-datatypes.html
There's even a demo about it here:
http://opendarwin.org/~drernie/C499496031/E20051026153908/index.html
I'd drop double, float, and integer in place of a single number type:
let's call it number. The recommended implementation for Number would
be a 64-bit floating point number (C double). This is parity with
JavaScript's Number type, Python's float, etc. and has enough bits to
represent any number in either of your three types. I'd also
explicitly specify what to do with Inf, -Inf, and NaN; either make
them invalid to have in a document, or represented as strings in some
way. If valid, the aforementioned spellings are convenient because
that's what JavaScript understands.
Normally I'd agree with you - I am a big fan of duck typing - but it
depends on the goal. If it is to provide a safe way to round trip data,
we may need to consider the strongly typed languages too. Sometimes
integers are what you want to avoid rounding glitches.
_______________________________________________
microformats-rest mailing list
[email protected]
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-rest
