RE: [XCON] On encodings

["Sean Olson" <Sean.Olson at microsoft.com>]

The reason JSON was chosen was to re-use an existing toolset inside
common browsers (Javascript). You'll notice that a brand new binary
encoding was not chosen in this context (I'm not saying this is a
perfect analogy for XCON) 

-----Original Message-----
From: Pete Cordell [mailto:pete at tech-know-ware.com] 
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 9:34 AM
To: Sean Olson
Cc: XCON-IETF
Subject: Re: [XCON] On encodings

----- Original Message From: "Sean Olson" <Sean.Olson at microsoft.com>

> To be fair, JSON is pushed because of its ubiquitous support in 
> Javascript-enabled browsers. LUMAS doesn't have the same appeal 
> because it would be yet another new encoding. XML is not perfect and 
> not something I would try to use to solve all problems. Yet, it's use 
> in the conferencing event package, presence, and other 
> SIP/SIMPLE/SIPPING protocols makes it an attractive candidate for
re-use.

My position is that if message size is not a problem, then you might as
well use XML, for all the reasons that Henning mentions.  However, I'm
hearing that there are worries about message size etc., and if that is
the case, let's not invent another application specific message
encoding, but adopt a more general one that enhances the programmers
tool chest and can be used in other applications.

I mentioned JSON as an example of a precedent where a community well
versed in XML has considered adopting an alternative approach in some
cases.

Pete.
--
=============================================
Pete Cordell
Tech-Know-Ware Ltd
                         for XML to C++ data binding visit
                         http://www.tech-know-ware.com/lmx
                         (or http://www.xml2cpp.com)
=============================================



_______________________________________________
XCON mailing list
XCON at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon