2 ms·
Indeed, the RFC says so directly: CBOR was inspired by MessagePack. MessagePack was developed and promoted by Sadayuki Furuhashi ("frsyuki"). This refe
by ucarion 7y ago
Indeed, the RFC says so directly:
CBOR was inspired by MessagePack. MessagePack was developed and
promoted by Sadayuki Furuhashi ("frsyuki"). This reference to
MessagePack is solely for attribution; CBOR is not intended as a
version of or replacement for MessagePack, as it has different design
goals and requirements.
I fail to see what is wrong with having both CBOR and MessagePack, or with trying to bring a MessagePack-like thing to the IETF, if MessagePack's design (lack of extension points, etc.) was problematic for enabling future applications.
Also: CBOR is not one person. The CBOR working group, and the IETF in general, put forward the spec. If you object to how the process went down, your quarrel likely lies with IETF, not any individual.
- camgunz 7y agoCBOR isn't merely _inspired_ by MessagePack. cbor-ruby forked a Ruby MessagePack implementation. Its format is conceptually and fundamentally the same. As for the rest of the process, that HN post I linked to has a basket of links at the end which are a good summary of what happened. I still (as I wrote before) won't characterize events, I think people should make up their own mind about it. But I think it's not biasing to reiterate: > At least cbor-ruby started with the MessagePack sources. The story is that Carsten took MessagePack, wrote a standard and added some things he wanted, and called it something else.