• From: John Cowan <cowan@m...>
• To: Michael Kay <mike@s...>
• Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 16:17:12 -0500

Michael Kay scripsit:

> What data structures do we need? Basically those in JSON, plus  
> structured text.

Sounds good to me, and I like the name "Jaxon", which currently seems
to be mostly used as a spelling variant of "Jackson".

> * Maps (key - value pairs)
>
> * Sequences of values
>
> * Strings, numbers, booleans
>
> * Text elements

If you are going to break JavaScript compatibility, which is one of
JSON's important features, then you might as well go a little further:

* The full range of IEEE 754 floats

* Language tagging in data

* XSD simple types

> For syntax, extend JSON with one additional kind of value - the text  
> element - which looks like an XML element today, except that the  
> attributes are replaced by a property of an element called its metadata  
> which may be any of the above kind of values - most often a map, but not  
> restricted.

I'd add 0.inf, -0.inf, and 0.nan syntax for infinities and NaNs, ISO
8601 syntax for gDate and gDateTime, and the ability to add XSD simple
type names (prepended with "^^") and language tags (prepended with "@")
to a JSON literal in either order.  N3 allows this on string literals
only, but 32^^integer seems better to me than "32"^^integer.

It would probably make sense to allow only a subset of simple types.

--
The Unicode Standard does not encode            John Cowan
idiosyncratic, personal, novel, or private      http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
use characters, nor does it encode logos
or graphics.                                    cowan@c...

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XML Redux
    • From: Kurt Cagle <kurt.cagle@g...>

• References:
  • XML Redux
    • From: Liam R E Quin <liam@w...>
  • Re: XML Redux
    • From: Michael Kay <mike@s...>