Michael Kay scripsit:
> What data structures do we need? Basically those in JSON, plus
> structured text.
Sounds good to me, and I like the name "Jaxon", which currently seems
to be mostly used as a spelling variant of "Jackson".
> * Maps (key - value pairs)
>
> * Sequences of values
>
> * Strings, numbers, booleans
>
> * Text elements
If you are going to break JavaScript compatibility, which is one of
JSON's important features, then you might as well go a little further:
* The full range of IEEE 754 floats
* Language tagging in data
* XSD simple types
> For syntax, extend JSON with one additional kind of value - the text
> element - which looks like an XML element today, except that the
> attributes are replaced by a property of an element called its metadata
> which may be any of the above kind of values - most often a map, but not
> restricted.
I'd add 0.inf, -0.inf, and 0.nan syntax for infinities and NaNs, ISO
8601 syntax for gDate and gDateTime, and the ability to add XSD simple
type names (prepended with "^^") and language tags (prepended with "@")
to a JSON literal in either order. N3 allows this on string literals
only, but 32^^integer seems better to me than "32"^^integer.
It would probably make sense to allow only a subset of simple types.
--
The Unicode Standard does not encode John Cowan
idiosyncratic, personal, novel, or private http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
use characters, nor does it encode logos
or graphics. cowan@ccil.org
