Hi,
Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> I don't really believe that JSON is "only one use case". XML and JSON
> are in a class of their own; there's nothing else out there that is
> really comparable.
You might want to hear about the UBF specs from Joe Armstrong, let me
quote its page about it:
UBF is a language for transporting and describing complex data
structures across a network. It has three components:
* UBF(A) is a data transport format, roughly equivalent to
well-formed XML.
* UBF(B) is a programming langauge for describing types in UBF(A)
and protocols between clients and servers. UBF(B) is roughly
equivalent to to Verified XML, XML-schemas, SOAP and WDSL.
* UBF(C) is a meta-level protocol between used between UBF servers.
While the XML series of languages had the goal of having a human
readable format the UBF languages take the opposite view and provide a
"machine friendly" format.
http://www.sics.se/~joe/ubf/site/home.html
It seems there's an ongoing revision to adapt this work to JSON
nowadays:
http://armstrongonsoftware.blogspot.com/2009/02/json-protocols-part-1.html
Oh and now I'm wondering about ASN.1...
Regards,
--
dim
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
