3 ms·
> IMO, SPKI SEXPs are much more sensible than this design and many, many other designs Yes, yes, ten thousand times yes! I really don't understand why, over t
by zeveb 9y ago
> IMO, SPKI SEXPs are much more sensible than this design and many, many other designs
Yes, yes, ten thousand times yes! I really don't understand why, over two decades hence, the world has stuck with XPKI & ASN.1, and has invented XML & JSON, when SPKI solved the PKI problem for good & canonical S-expressions solved the flexible- and human-readable–data-exchange problems for good.
- Groxx 9y agoSince you both seem to know the spec: how would you encode key/value pairs? Or would you have to have a list of nested lists, like (my_dict (key value) (key value) (key value)) Un-ordered qualities for data can be useful (e.g. they allow you to reorder data to stream "important" stuff first), but I don't see it anywhere in here.
- zeveb 9y agoWith canonical S-expressions, unordered sets are a problem because part of the point is to be able to have a single canonical sequence of bytes, which can be hashed or compared bytewise for equality. In general, I'd resist specifying data as arbitrary key-value pairs, but if I decided that I indeed needed them, I'd do exactly as you suggest — and I'd mandate that the be sorted lexicographically by their keys.