From a personal perspective, I'm an admirer of JSON and its clarity
and simplicity, and also prefer only-one-format. It's hard to
negotiate between two formats over the wire and get that right.
From a standardization perspective, since JSON is already an RFC, and
because IETF reviewers look carefully at interoperability ("mandatory
to implement" minimums), I believe that a single format using JSON
will be an easy road to take.
Hope this helps,
Lisa
On Aug 21, 2008, at 7:52 PM, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
* Eric Wilhelm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-08-21 18:50]:
Does it have to be just one? Now and forever?
It doesn’t have to be *just* one, but it needs to be *at least*
one, and specifically at least one that *everyone* supports, so
that you can count on having a way to make an emitter and
consumer understand each other.
The question that arises is that since everyone has to support
that particular format, how much value do we gain from letting
people use other ones?
Personally I am not sufficiently convinced that allowing for more
than one format will turn out to be harmful that I would argue
against it, but I am also quite unconvinced of the value, and I
do know that this flexibility will incur costs.
So I am inclined to say that it should probably be just one
format, now and forever. (If worst comes to worst we still have
the very-last-resort option of revving TAP.)
Regards,
--
Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
_______________________________________________
tap mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tap
