|
|
|
|
|
by scrollaway
4219 days ago
|
|
> Hey, sorry that those bank transfer got lost, but it turns out that we mistyped the account number field name and the destination system just ate it. The JSON approach does not give you everything-and-the-kitchen-sink. A lot of people consider that a feature. If you want to do schema validation on top of json messages, you're free to do it when you receive them - the data format does not prevent you from that, it merely does not advocate and standardize one-way-of-doing-it. The fact the various existing json schema solutions have not found a leader amongst themselves speaks loudly to the fact that it's a useless feature for most people, and the format is better off without it. Whatever the RFC would come up with, people would find fault in it... so if most users don't care, why force one solution over any other? GP is foolish to think XML does not have benefits over JSON, but you're a lot more foolish to think those benefits (the ones you advertise, anyway) should be part of the language. You say "As JSON grows...", but that's exactly the thing: it doesn't grow. It's a simple data format and needs no new feature. Would trailing commas and comments be nice? They sure would. But we can live without them in the format itself... let alone schema validation which can be done externally. |
|
I am? What benefits would those be?