Inline: -----Original Message----- From: ext Peter McCann [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 10:19 AM To: Bajko Gabor (Nokia-CIC/SiliconValley); Zhulei; [email protected] Subject: RE: JSON vs XML
Should we split off the JSON encodings of geographic locations and contact information into separate documents, so they can be re-used by others? <Gabor> Yes, I think that would make a lot of sense. We need to identify the data structures we want to re-use in paws, and it is not only the location ones, but possibly other stuff like vCard, iCal, etc. I'll try to put together a potential list of data structures paws may want to reuse, in the next couple of days. We will then just need some volunteers who could write up the json encoding of those data structures. Should we urge ECRIT (or some other working group) to re-specify LoST in JSON encoding? Or should we do the equivalent work here in PAWS? <Gabor> We do not have a formal decision in this WG on how to do DB discovery yet, whether we use LoST or sg else. Let's have some more discussion on DB discovery first, and once we know how to do discovery, we can come back to this question. - Gabor -Pete [email protected] wrote: > I can sense an agreement that we can go ahead and use json encoding > (only). > > I would then go ahead and instruct the editor to encode the data model > with json in the merged draft. > > - Gabor > > -----Original Message----- > From: ext Zhulei [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 9:17 PM > To: Bajko Gabor (Nokia-CIC/SiliconValley); [email protected] > Subject: Re: JSON vs XML > > Hi, > > I really went through e-mail discussions on this. My proposal is to > use json as data model of paws protocol issued by paws, in case that > wg addresses the trend of APIs of browser venders and keep some > discovery mechanisms open for any extra works. At the same time, we > have some problems to satisfy the needs to reuse ws schema encoded by > traditional devices, which will issue a separate wg document for xml > encoding standard for xml supporting industries. > > The reasons doing this are not technical issues, just we have broad > requirements to reuse TSWS generally for communication purposes, > including smart objects, ad hoc use, browser API, wifi broadband, > cellular etc. > > Best regards, > Zhu Lei > > -----邮件原件----- > 发件人: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > 发送时间: 2012年9月14日 7:40 > 收件人: Zhulei; [email protected] > 主题: RE: JSON vs XML > > There was not much feedback on the list about the objections to the > different encodings. > > We seem to agree that: > xml may not be the right choice because the current trend for APIs in > the browsers is towards json; and if we choose json, as some data > structures PAWS may reuse are encoded in xml, a json encoding for > those would need to be defined (which is not impossible, but requires > some extra work) > > The latter of the two objections will not be valid when we'll send the > document to iesg, as all the encodings will have to be in place at > that time. > So we are left with practically one question: do we want to follow the > current industry trend and use json, or do we want to stick with xml. > > A significant number of people prefer to specify both encodings, but > that may not be agreeable with the iesg. > > This is where we stand now, deadlocked on this not critical issue. > > Any suggestion on how to move forward would be appreciated. > > - Gabor > > > From: ext Zhulei [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 12:59 AM > To: Bajko Gabor (Nokia-CIC/SiliconValley); [email protected] > Cc: Zhulei > Subject: Re: JSON vs XML > > Hi, > > Actually, no so much comments on this choosing. I just do not think > xml is a problem to embedded devices, in fact xml is well supported by > different sort of devices in my view. The issue may be some power and > bandwidth constrained devices (e.g. some smart objects) to support txt > based information. Let’s ignore this case since we are not to define > binary encoding at the moment. > > Best regards, > Zhu Lei > > 发件人: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] 代表 > [email protected] 发送时间: 2012年9月8日 4:41 收件人: [email protected] 主题: > [paws] JSON vs XML > > The chairs discussed with the AD, and we came up with the following > action plan to drive this wg to a consensus on the json vs xml encoding: > we’ll collect an objections list for json and one for xml, listing > what is seen wrong/problematic with that encoding. The chairs and the > wg will go through that list and see if the objections are valid, then > decide which encoding has more support and choose that one. If we end > up with good objections list for both, we may choose to support both > encodings, as that list will justify the decision once the document > advances to the iesg. > > I went through the emails and I found so far the following valid > objections: > > xml: > too verbose, may be a problem to be supported in embedded devices > current trend for APIs in the browsers is towards json > > > > json: > some data structures are encoded in xml, a json encoding for those > would need to be defined (which is not impossible, but requires some > extra work) > > > If you have additional objections, send them to the list asap. > > - Gabor > _______________________________________________ > paws mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws _______________________________________________ paws mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
