[occi-wg] Votes: XML vs. JSON vs. TXT
b at b3k.us
Thu May 7 11:44:48 CDT 2009
Please consider what this actually means: all 3 must be specified, they must
all be maintained, and they must all be kept compatible. Once we've done
all that work, people have the choice of either a) producing implementations
that use all 3 or b) producing implementations that may be mutually
(b) should really give us pause on the multi-format path. The ability to
trivially produce mutually incompatible, but compliant, implementations is a
serious protocol specification failure.
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 1:12 AM, Marc-Elian Begin <meb at sixsq.com> wrote:
> I've tried to follow the thread. And here's my 50 cents.
> I'm currently using restlet to build RESTFul web-services (very nice by
> the way) in Java. In such a framework, generating the requested format
> based on the requests's 'Content-Type' attribute is trivial (as long as
> the transformation is available). This means that my WS can talk
> (x)html when the user's a human (me), or XML or JSON or plain/text.
> So for me multi-format is mandatory... and looking at the community this
> group is made of, I think it's the only way forward.
> From similar discussions in other spheres... the real point (and
> someone else made that point already), is >>simplicity<<.
> So XML's easy to transform. JSON's easy to consume. Text is simple...
> So... my vote is... all of the above! And as long as the format is
> aggressively simple... the mapping should be trivial!
> Richard Davies wrote:
> > I'd like to conduct a straw poll of members on this list.
> > Tim Bray wrote:
> >> 4. Specific advice on multiple formats
> >> Don't do it. Pick one data format and stick with it.
> > and that does make me question our (/my!) current proposal of multiple
> > formats with automatic conversion.
> > I'd like to conduct a poll of everyone on this list considering the 3
> > options:
> > - XML
> > - JSON
> > - TXT
> > Please can people reply to this post casting a single vote for their most
> > preferred of these three formats. I'll tabulate the responses. If there's
> > clear winner, we should probably go with it alone. If there's a split,
> > multiple format support as we're currently proposing may be the answer.
> > I'm going to start the counts with the clearly stated opinions which I've
> > seen to date (listed below). If I'm misrepresenting anyone, then please
> > also reply and I'll change your vote in my count.
> > XML: 3
> > - Kristoffer Sheather
> > - Sam Johnston http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/occi-wg/2009-May/000381.html
> > - William Vambenepe
> > JSON: 7
> > - Alexis Richardson
> > - Andy Edmonds?
> > - Ben Black http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/occi-wg/2009-May/000395.html
> > - Randy Bias? (JSON listed first at
> > - Richard Davies
> http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/occi-wg/2009-May/000409.html (split EH vote)
> > - Tino Vazquez?
> > - Tim Bray http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/occi-wg/2009-May/000418.html
> > TXT: 1
> > - Chris Webb http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/occi-wg/2009-May/000409.html(split EH vote)
> > _______________________________________________
> > occi-wg mailing list
> > occi-wg at ogf.org
> > http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg
> occi-wg mailing list
> occi-wg at ogf.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the occi-wg