ndjson-spec

I like that it mimics SQL queries/filtering which is straightforward. Typically I use something like JSONPath [1] (basically XPath for JSON) [2] or jq for this but having more options with other syntax and style is helpful. For streamed JSON like NDJSON [3] there are some nice filtering options [4] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JSONPath [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9535 [3] https://github.com/ndjson/ndjson-spec [4] https://github.com/mbostock/ndjson-cli?tab=readme-ov-file#fi...

If you're not concerned with the size of the file, you might consider just using NDJSON. https://github.com/ndjson/ndjson-spec

NDJSON is the shorthand I've seen: https://github.com/ndjson/ndjson-spec

NDJSON, which actually has a rudimentary spec, says > Each JSON text MUST conform to the [RFC8259] standard and MUST be written to the stream followed by the newline character \n (0x0A). https://github.com/ndjson/ndjson-spec/ But yeah, these things should be merged and formalized. Being web-adjacent, how likely is that? What we're seeing here is the usual patterns: - the less-useful newer thing with slightly better marketing wins eyeballs even when it's technically inferior - an "ecosystem cornerstone" is someone's pet project from a prior employer and now neglected (https://github.com/ndjson/ndjson-spec/issues/35#issuecomment...) - web things don't get RFCs written because web people are disconnected from old school internet people - W3C adjacent people didn't get their RDF tuple world domination and industry standards don't matter to th

What’s the difference between terminators and separators here? The ndjson spec [0] doesn’t say anything like that, and it seems that ndjson and jsonlines are identical in what documents they accept. [0]: https://github.com/ndjson/ndjson-spec

Isn't this just ndjson? https://github.com/ndjson/ndjson-spec