undefined | Better HN

0 pointsantonvs11mo ago0 comments

Haha yes, that does probably dwarf any other factors.

But still, I think if the original JSON spec had been longer and more comprehensive, along the lines of Rivest's, that could have limited JSON's popularity, or resulted in people just ignoring parts of it and focusing on the parts they found useful.

The original JSON RFC-4627 was about 1/3rd the size of the original Rivest draft (a body of 260 lines vs. 750); it defines a single representation instead of four; and e.g. the section on "Encoding" is just 3 sentences. Here it is, for reference: https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4627.txt

0 comments

wat1000011mo ago

We already see that a little bit. JSON in theory allows arbitrary decimal numbers, but in practice it’s almost always limited to numbers that are representable as an IEEE-754 double. It used to allow UTF-16 and UTF-32, but in practice only UTF-8 was widely accepted, and that eventually got reflected in the spec.

I’m sure you’re right. If even this simple spec exceeded what people would actually use as a real standard, surely anything beyond that would also be left by the wayside.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

wat1000011mo ago

I’m sure you’re right. If even this simple spec exceeded what people would actually use as a real standard, surely anything beyond that would also be left by the wayside.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse