| 30 Jul 2025 |
 John Ericson | so maybe we should use that for the new derivation format | 14:57:55 |
| John Ericson | canonical and easy to read | 14:58:01 |
| John Ericson | frankly, I don't think non-canonical would cause issues, because it is fine to have fewer cache hits | 14:58:24 |
| John Ericson | but it do feel better with it | 14:58:28 |
| John Ericson | * frankly, I don't think non-canonicity would cause issues, because it is fine to have fewer cache hits | 14:58:49 |
| John Ericson | oh the RFC exists, but nlohmann doesn't yet implement it | 14:59:16 |
 emily | (from the last time this came up, including my strong warning against canonicalized JSON formats and suggestions for alternatives) | 15:00:26 |
| emily | the good thing about JSON canonicalization schemes is that there are so many to pick from! | 15:00:54 |
| John Ericson | emily: how about CBOR? | 15:09:51 |
| John Ericson | Robert Hensing (roberth) was once concerned that making it binary would be a humans debugging drawback | 15:10:24 |
