• From: Dave Pawson <davep@d...>
• To: John Cowan <cowan@m...>
• Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 14:13:40 +0000

On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 16:17:12 -0500
John Cowan <cowan@m...> wrote:

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

> 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.




{  authors: [
       {name: "Michael Kay", affiliation: "Saxonica"},
       {name: "Liam Quin", affiliation: "W3C"}
    ]
    abstract: <para { style : "bold" }>Here be some dragons</para>
    content: <section { numbers : [1,1,2] }><para>...</para></section>
   meta: [
     {dob: 1991-11-23T12:01Z ^^dateTime}
     {age: 23^^integer}
     {nick: Mike@en-UK}
   ] 
}



I think that's pretty readable?
do we need xsd:dateTime or would it be redundant?

-- 

regards 

-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XML Redux
    • From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@g...>
  • Re: XML Redux
    • From: Richard Salz <rsalz@u...>

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