On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 4:48 PM, Joseph Adams <joeyadams3.14...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm wondering whether the internal representation of JSON should be > plain JSON text, or some binary code that's easier to traverse and > whatnot. For the sake of code size, just keeping it in text is > probably best.
+1 for text. > Now my thoughts and opinions on the JSON parsing/unparsing itself: > > It should be built-in, rather than relying on an external library > (like XML does). Why? I'm not saying you aren't right, but you need to make an argument rather than an assertion. This is a community, so no one is entitled to decide anything unilaterally, and people want to be convinced - including me. > As far as character encodings, I'd rather keep that out of the JSON > parsing/serializing code itself and assume UTF-8. Wherever I'm wrong, > I'll just throw encode/decode/validate operations at it. I think you need to assume that the encoding will be the server encoding, not UTF-8. Although others on this list are better qualified to speak to that than I am. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
