since the json-rpc.org is outdated quite some time now, and our files were removed from Google Groups [*], I decided to create a "central" JSON-RPC page, where all specs/drafts/proposams can be easily found, and which collects links to everything about JSON-RPC:
I actually link over to your original content from both site, so I'll update my links to point to this content as well.
How would people feel about posting the spec into a locked post here (looks like an option in google's new ui). It will loose some of the formatting, but can probably be adjusted to visually look appealing. Also, I'd like to see it put into a json object that we can turn into the spec html, this way we can very easily track and reason about changes it.
On Thursday, March 1, 2012 6:17:45 PM UTC-5, . wrote:
> Hi,
> since the json-rpc.org is outdated quite some time now, and our files > were removed from Google Groups [*], I decided to create a "central" > JSON-RPC page, where all specs/drafts/proposams can be easily found, > and which collects links to everything about JSON-RPC:
> It's not complete yet, but I hope to add more information/links and > hopefully rework some of the drafts; but I think it's already useful > as it is.
> Comments/suggestions, improvements, links to other pages etc. are > welcome!
> best regards, > Roland
> [*] Thanks Matt, that you saved them!
On Thursday, March 1, 2012 6:17:45 PM UTC-5, . wrote:
> Hi,
> since the json-rpc.org is outdated quite some time now, and our files > were removed from Google Groups [*], I decided to create a "central" > JSON-RPC page, where all specs/drafts/proposams can be easily found, > and which collects links to everything about JSON-RPC:
> It's not complete yet, but I hope to add more information/links and > hopefully rework some of the drafts; but I think it's already useful > as it is.
> Comments/suggestions, improvements, links to other pages etc. are > welcome!
> How would people feel about posting the spec into a locked post here (looks > like an option in google's new ui). It will loose some of the formatting, > but can probably be adjusted to visually look appealing. Also, I'd like to > see it put into a json object that we can turn into the spec html, this way > we can very easily track and reason about changes it.
JSON is a good serialization format, but it's not a markup language. So, I would suggest to use some "wiki-like" markup language instead, e.g. reStructuredText, which is human readable as text and can be easily converted to HTML.
> The easier these topics are to find, the better. Thank you for posting the links and hosting the site :)
> I have reached out to Jan about the original site, I'll post back once I have any news.
> To be clear about the domains I run, I had setup 2 domains a while back: > One for the spec related stuff, jsonrpc.org. > One for personal opinion content / promote on, json-rpc.info. > The second one never really took off on my end, life got busy, other excuses, etc. I completely forgot I had posted something about 'shapes': http://www.json-rpc.info/?page_id=31
> I actually link over to your original content from both site, so I'll update my links to point to this content as well.
> How would people feel about posting the spec into a locked post here (looks like an option in google's new ui). It will loose some of the formatting, but can probably be adjusted to visually look appealing. Also, I'd like to see it put into a json object that we can turn into the spec html, this way we can very easily track and reason about changes it.
> Any thoughts are appreciated :)
> On Thursday, March 1, 2012 6:17:45 PM UTC-5, . wrote: > Hi, > since the json-rpc.org is outdated quite some time now, and our files > were removed from Google Groups [*], I decided to create a "central" > JSON-RPC page, where all specs/drafts/proposams can be easily found, > and which collects links to everything about JSON-RPC:
> It's not complete yet, but I hope to add more information/links and > hopefully rework some of the drafts; but I think it's already useful > as it is.
> Comments/suggestions, improvements, links to other pages etc. are > welcome!
> best regards, > Roland
> [*] Thanks Matt, that you saved them!
> On Thursday, March 1, 2012 6:17:45 PM UTC-5, . wrote: > Hi, > since the json-rpc.org is outdated quite some time now, and our files > were removed from Google Groups [*], I decided to create a "central" > JSON-RPC page, where all specs/drafts/proposams can be easily found, > and which collects links to everything about JSON-RPC:
> It's not complete yet, but I hope to add more information/links and > hopefully rework some of the drafts; but I think it's already useful > as it is.
> Comments/suggestions, improvements, links to other pages etc. are > welcome!
> best regards, > Roland
> [*] Thanks Matt, that you saved them!
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JSON-RPC" group. > To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/json-rpc/-/fm-vRsAMwBIJ. > To post to this group, send email to json-rpc@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to json-rpc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/json-rpc?hl=en.
Still getting used to the new groups UI. The soft grey theme helps a little, but they really don't like visual color separation in their new designs... <grumbles/>
On Friday, March 2, 2012 4:47:13 AM UTC-5, . wrote:
> Hi,
> > How would people feel about posting the spec into a locked post here > (looks > > like an option in google's new ui). It will loose some of the > formatting, > > but can probably be adjusted to visually look appealing. Also, I'd like > to > > see it put into a json object that we can turn into the spec html, this > way > > we can very easily track and reason about changes it. > JSON is a good serialization format, but it's not a markup language. > So, I would suggest to use some "wiki-like" markup language instead, > e.g. reStructuredText, which is human readable as text and can be > easily converted to HTML.
