[Playlist] an alternate xspf over json implementation

[Chris Anderson]

On 6/13/07, Sebastian Pipping <webmaster at hartwork.org> wrote:
> Chris Anderson wrote:
> > I updated the page to handle extension elements. I was surprised to
> > see how easy it was to handle multiple extensions from the same
> > application.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> With mixed extension types we lose the extension order this
> way, right? Is that order important to preserve?
> --------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not sure I follow you here... I was imagining that if the
extension for say "http://grabb.it" showed up twice in a track, it
would show up as two elements of the "http://grabb.it" extension
array. The order could be preserved, but I don't think there's any
reason to need it to be. As far as the insides of the extensions go -
that's up to individual applications.


> --------------------------------------------------------------
> You mean an auto conversion for an extension from XML to JSON
> will work but maybe look bad but extension authors can
> define a better JSON edition as well?

Exactly. The nice thing is that simple key-value pair extensions
convert cleanly and easily, so applications that limit themselves to
that vocabulary won't have to do any extra work. Anything more complex
will require something like the conversion algorithm described in the
XML.com article.

-- 
Chris Anderson
http://jchris.mfdz.com