On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 11:45:13AM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > But, if my memory serves me well, you have always insisted on being able to > do the roundtrip conversion between XML and JSON (without using the data > model, or in anydata). >
I still think this was/is desirable but it does not matter whether the term is encoding or representation. > >> - it is important to think about what representation to use for a given > >> use case (this may influence the choice of protocols and/or tools). > > > > The same has always been true before as well. > > At one point, it looked like XML will be the mandatory "encoding" for > RESTCONF, despite my fierce opposition, as if it was the the same as > requiring everybody to support UTF-8. Fortunately this was eventually > overturned. > Again, whether something is mandatory or not does not depend on whether it is called encoding or representation. > > In other words, if we make this change, we may consider to have this > > explicitly mentioned in both charters. > > I don't mind although I don't think it is *that* important. For me, it is important that we have a plan to adopt a new terminology everywhere. If we do not have such a plan, I am strongly in favour to stick with terminology that so far we use consistently. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/> _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
