First we have to decide we want to use LoST. I favor that, of course. Then chairs can discuss with ecrit chairs on the best way to proceed.
Brian On Sep 19, 2012, at 1:18 PM, Peter McCann <[email protected]> wrote: > Should we split off the JSON encodings of geographic locations and contact > information into separate documents, so they can be re-used by others? > > 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? > > -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 _______________________________________________ paws mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
