Closed earlchew closed 10 years ago
I did this intentionally for the sake of future implementors, but let me know if my thinking is off here...
Draft 8 was live for over a year and if it hadn't been for the discussion around binary types (for the most part) it would probably have morphed into the 1.0 version.
With the smaller additions in Draft 9 and the optimized containers (major) in Draft 10, I have a feeling that for all intents and purposes this could be the 1.0 (or possibly final version) of UBJSON.
Given that I wanted to remove all the version-specific qualifications on the website and just make the statement: "THIS is the ubjson spec" not some smaller statement of "THIS is version XYZ of the spec"
I think this helps inspire confidence in the spec (which has 3 years of work behind it now) as well as help stabilize it a bit.
If there were constantly new/big feature requests coming in, I wouldn't think this could be 1.0/final and would have left "Draft 10" on the site, but over the last 2 years the only big/controversial feature that finally got added was the optimized containers -- there were no other major/revolutionary features requested in that timeframe which makes me think that ubjson has really come into it's own and found it's sweet spot... now it can just exist and grow.
That was my motivation at least -- but as always, I'm open to rethinking things if I got it wrong. Just reopen and we can discuss!
Thanks for the feedback!
I understand your thinking, and perhaps all the above is clear to those who have participated in the group for a long time. For new members, the relationship between the web site and the various revisions could be clearer. Here are some suggestions to help bring clarity that you might want to consider:
Being new to UBJSON, I wished it had been simpler to determine which draft the web site is describing. I suggest a subtitle saying "Draft 10" or similar would be helpful.