Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

jsonlines #35

Open
glensc opened this issue Mar 3, 2021 · 7 comments
Open

jsonlines #35

glensc opened this issue Mar 3, 2021 · 7 comments

Comments

@glensc
Copy link

glensc commented Mar 3, 2021

I was suprised there's another json lines "standard":

don't know which originated from what (or developed independently), but would be nice to have a comparison with jsonlines.

ps: ndjson.org website is derived from jsonlines.org website:

image

@glensc
Copy link
Author

glensc commented Mar 3, 2021

found similar issue in the jsonlines repo:

@pekkaklarck
Copy link

pekkaklarck commented Mar 23, 2021

👍 for just one standard and one web site. Based on a quick look there aren't any real differences except to the extension (.jsonl vs .ndjson). Having a common extension would make it more likely that editors and IDEs support this format without extra configuration.

@jsejcksn
Copy link
Contributor

jsejcksn commented Jul 6, 2022

I know this issue isn't the first duplicate, and I understand that, historically, there were spec differences due to potential ambiguity (UTF-8 encoding, required JSON data on every line, etc.), but it seems as though they are now aligned. At this point in time, are there any remaining spec differences?

And are there any other issues which are preventing convergence (e.g. copyright credit, etc.)? I think the community will greatly benefit from a single, unified standard with an RFC, registered IANA media type, etc. The involved parties appear to be reasonable and responsive. Can we make this happen?


Related observation: If repository issue activity is any metric for discoverability, then the JSON Lines name has an advantage.

@maximveksler
Copy link

Yay for merge of formats.

Also - Please maintain the jsonl extension 👍

@finnp
Copy link
Member

finnp commented Oct 20, 2022

I'm the owner of the ndjson domain and have contributed to the original spec. I'm no longer working with my employer at the time who was interested in the standardisation of NDJSON, so indeed I'm not very motivated to continue the work here and submit a RFC.

That being said. I don't really care about the name and I don't think it's very useful to have two different websites and descriptions for this. Especially since I don't see any differences between the formats.

I'm open to the idea to deprecate the ndjson repository and redirect the website to jsonlines.org (since some places link it).

Maybe it would be nice to keep the spec document and update it for the new name? Maybe still mentioning the former name.

@sp4ce
Copy link

sp4ce commented Apr 11, 2023

Hi, I am trying to build the RFC to standardize jsonlines (wardi/jsonlines#19), and in an effort to avoid having both ndjson and jsonl around, that would be great if you could deprecate ndjson and we would mention the name in the RFC as well.

@remram44
Copy link

remram44 commented Jun 20, 2023

NDJSON optionally allows parsers to skip empty lines

This "optionally" is scary. It would be best if the spec was clear on what is and isn't a valid file.

remcohaszing added a commit to remcohaszing/vscode that referenced this issue Dec 12, 2024
NDJSON is a specification that is essentially the same thing as JSON
lines. The spec can be found on https://github.com/ndjson/ndjson-spec.

The NDJSON website is down. The project seems pretty much dead. The
status is best described by this comment:
ndjson/ndjson-spec#35 (comment)

However, this doesn’t mean there aren’t any `.ndjson` files out there.
This changes adds `.ndjson` to the list of `jsonl` file extensions.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

7 participants