On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Randy Presuhn < [email protected]> wrote:
> Hi - > > > From: Robert Wilton > > Sent: Nov 17, 2015 2:19 AM > ... > > As a possible compromise, what about something like: > > > > The JSON encoding defines that anyxml may be encoded in whatever way > > the implementor finds useful, or even not at all. If a preferred > > custom encoding is not being used, then it is suggested that anyxml > > data be encoded as a string containing XML to maximize legacy > > interoperability. > > For an "any" type to be conveyed with neither any indication of its > grammar nor of the encoding rules used to assemble that payload makes > me think that interoperability will only happen by lucky accident. > > We've already established that it only requires a wave of a magic > wand for the recipient to know the *grammar* of the encoded data. > Is it going to take a second wave of another magic wand for the > recipient (or relay!) to guess what encoding rules have been used > for this value's payload? > > Forgive the harsh words, but this seems truly and badly broken. > > If I had a datastore in my server that stored mixed-mode XML, then it would be a problem to send those datastore contents in JSON. Since no server actually supports this, I don't see the problem. IMO anyxml NEVER worked for this purpose and still doesn't. Randy > Andy > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod >
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
