search

projectdanube / xdi2

XDI2 general purpose library and server
https://xdi2.org/
Other
31 stars 17 forks source link

make XDIJSONReader and XDIJSONWriter compatible with I-JSON #7

Open peacekeeper opened 10 years ago

peacekeeper commented 10 years ago

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bray-i-json-00.html

wAtNeustar commented 10 years ago

json-schemas @ ietf seem to roll-over every year or so. Are they consistently overloaded in this process? I.e. will bray be compatible with the next? Is bray consistent with zyp?

peacekeeper commented 10 years ago

I haven't followed JSON development that closely, so I don't really understand what these compatibility issues are about. But yes since XDI uses JSON we should probably be aware of any issues here. I agree it would probably make sense for us to consider how I-JSON and JSON Schema can be leveraged with XDI/JSON.

wAtNeustar commented 10 years ago

I-JSON is the current IETF draft. JSON-Schema is the previous. I'm not sure there are issues. Will investigate. Its the dynamic nature of the draft ownership that seems problematic. But if I can find no or even small obscure differences it probably doesn't mean we need to deliberately merge.

Will

From: Markus Sabadello notifications@github.com<mailto:notifications@github.com> Reply-To: projectdanube/xdi2 reply@reply.github.com<mailto:reply@reply.github.com> Date: Friday, January 24, 2014 3:35 AM To: projectdanube/xdi2 xdi2@noreply.github.com<mailto:xdi2@noreply.github.com> Cc: Will Martin will.martin@neustar.biz<mailto:will.martin@neustar.biz> Subject: Re: [xdi2] make XDIJSONReader and XDIJSONWriter compatible with I-JSON (#7)

I haven't followed JSON development that closely, so I don't really understand what these compatibility issues are about. But yes since XDI uses JSON we should probably be aware of any issues here. I agree it would probably make sense for us to consider how I-JSON and JSON Schema can be leveraged with XDI/JSON.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/projectdanube/xdi2/issues/7#issuecomment-33205547.