On 10/4/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Jim Wilson</b> <<a href="mailto:wilson.jim.r@gmail.com">wilson.jim.r@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> Hi Dimitri,<br><br>> While this is indeed clever, it requires branching for the reader of the<br>> resulting JSON, albeit a very easy one. It seems that if the value can<br>> be plural, it should be always wrapped into an array. <br><br>Personally (and this is just my opinion) I don't like that.  In order<br>to enforce such a rule, you have to know in advance whether any<br>particular thing can or cannot be plural - which would seem to be<br> context specific.</blockquote><div><br>You do know in advance. The microformat spec indicates which things are plural <br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> Also, what does that say about when something can be plural but there<br>are none of them? Should it be an empty array?  Should it be null?<br>Should the value even be represented as a key in the parent hash?</blockquote> <div><br>In JSON it simply wouldn't be in the structure at all...<br></div></div><br>Mike Kaply<br>