From XML to JSON to CBOR

The fact that the long article misses to make the historical/continuation link to MessagePack is by itself a red flag signalling a CBOR ad.

Edit: OK, actually there is a separate page for alternatives: https://cborbook.com/introduction/cbor_vs_the_other_guys.htm...

Have to agree. I've heard of every format you mentioned, but never heard of CBOR.

CBOR is just a standard data format. Why would it need an ad? What are they selling here?

I would agree their claim is a bit early, but I think a key difference between those you mentioned and CBOR is the stability expectation. Protobuf/Parquet/etc are usually single-source libraries/frameworks, which can be changed quite quickly, while CBOR seems to be going for a spec-first approach.

My complaint about JSON is that it’s not minimal enough. The receiver always has to validate anyway, so what has syntax typing done for us? Different implementations of JSON disagree about what constitutes a valid value. For instance, is

    {“x”: NaN}

Basically I think formats with syntax typed primitives always run into this problem: even if the encoder and decoder are consistent with each other about what the values are, the receiver still has to decide whether it can use the result. This after all is the main benefit of a library like Pydantic. But if we’re doing all this work to make sure the object is correct, we know what the value types are supposed to be on the receiving end, so why are we making a needlessly complex decoder guess for us?

> you have only the fundamental datatypes as a requirement

Not really; the set of datatypes has problems. It uses Unicode, not binary data and not non-Unicode text. Numbers are usually interpreted as floating point numbers rather than integers, which can also be a problem. Keys can only be strings. And, other problems. So, the data types are not very good.

And, since it is a text format, it means that escaping is required.

> And while you have to write type converters all the time for datetime, BLOBs etc.

Not having a proper data type for binary means that you will need to encode it using different types and then avoids the benefit of JSON, anyways. So, I think JSON is not as helpful.

I think DER is better (you do not have to use all of the types; only the types that you are using is necessary to be implemented, because the format of DER makes it possible to skip anything that you do not care about), and I made up TER which is text based format which can be converted to DER (so, even though a binary data is represented as text, it is still representing the binary data type, rather than needing to use the wrong data type like JSON does).

> And you can complain or explain with JSON: "Comments not a feature?! WTF!" - Add a field with the key "comment"

But then it is a part of the data, which you might not want.

CBOR (and MsgPack) still embraces that simplicity. It provides the same types of key-value, lists, and basic values.

However the types are more precise allowing you to differentiate between int32’s or int64’s or between strings or bytes.

Essentially you can replace json with it and gain performance, less ambiguity but with the same flexibility. You do need a step to print CBOR in human readable form, but it has a standardized human readable form similar to a typed json.

There's an example in the "Putting it Together" section, showing JSON, a "human readable" representation of CBOR, and the hexidecimal bytes of CBOR.

https://cborbook.com/part_1/practical_introduction_to_cbor.h...

I'm assuming, since it's a binary encoded, the textual output would not be something you'd like to look at.

Would you rather write a parser for this:

    SEQUENCE {
      SEQUENCE {
        OBJECT IDENTIFIER '1 2 840 113549 1 1 1'
        NULL
        }
      BIT STRING 0 unused bits, encapsulates {
          SEQUENCE {
            INTEGER
              00 EB 11 E7 B4 46 2E 09 BB 3F 90 7E 25 98 BA 2F
              C4 F5 41 92 5D AB BF D8 FF 0B 8E 74 C3 F1 5E 14
              9E 7F B6 14 06 55 18 4D E4 2F 6D DB CD EA 14 2D
              8B F8 3D E9 5E 07 78 1F 98 98 83 24 E2 94 DC DB
              39 2F 82 89 01 45 07 8C 5C 03 79 BB 74 34 FF AC
              04 AD 15 29 E4 C0 4C BD 98 AF F4 B7 6D 3F F1 87
              2F B5 C6 D8 F8 46 47 55 ED F5 71 4E 7E 7A 2D BE
              2E 75 49 F0 BB 12 B8 57 96 F9 3D D3 8A 8F FF 97
              73
            INTEGER 65537
            }
          }
      }

    (public-key
      (rsa
        (e 65537)
        (n
         165071726774300746220448927123206364028774814791758998398858897954156302007761692873754545479643969345816518330759318956949640997453881810518810470402537189804357876129675511237354284731082047260695951082386841026898616038200651610616199959087780217655249147161066729973643243611871694748249209548180369151859)))

And let’s not even get started with DER/BER/PEM and all that insanity. Just give me text!

Yes, but that comes from the telecom world. Hence thanks to NIH, that wheel must be reinvented.

The FOSS tooling for it sucks balls. That's why

And .Net 5 circa 2020 added support for CBOR. ASP.NET ended up being a good choice for an experimental WebAuthn server for FedCM and DID experiments.

That’s why I’m wondering if there is an actual CBOR encoder in the browsers? I mean, there must be one, or am I wrong?

Or compute. Compression isn't free, especially on power constrained devices. At scale power and compute also have real cost implications. Most data centers have long been using binary encoding formats such as protobuf to save on compute and network bandwidth. cbor is nice because it's self describing so you can still understand it without a schema, which is a nice property people like about json.

Looks like it's a typo; they state:

> 0x47c35000 encodes 10000.0

But by my math that encodes 100000.0 (note the extra zero).

JSON + compression (++speed --size ==win)

your server can do this natively for live data. your browser can decompress natively. and ++human-readable. if you're one of those that doesn't want the user to read the data, then maybe CBOR is attractive??? but why would you send data down the wire that you don't want the user to see? isn't the point of sending the data to the client is so the client can display that data?

> I'm quite surprised that this hasn't been included.

Why? That goes against the narrative of promoting one over the other. Nissan doesn't advertise that a Toyota has something they don't. They just pretend it doesn't exist.

I also use ASN.1 but I use C, so I wrote my own implementation of DER.

Erlang and ASN.1 are from telecom, so it makes sense they have best support

> ...awkwardly, streaming is a protocol level feature, not a data format level feature.

Indeed. I recall that tnetstrings were intentionally made non-streamable to discourage people from trying to do so: "If you need to send 1000 DVDs, don't try to encode them in 1 tnetstring payload, instead send them as a sequence of tnetstrings as payload chunks with checks and headers like most other protocols"

> Warning: I have a big rant about the tag registry. > ...

I completely agree with your rant w.r.t. automated decoding. However, a global tag registry can still potentially be useful in that, given CBOR encoded data with a tag that my decoder doesn't support, it may be easier for a human to infer the intended meaning. Some types may be very obvious, others less so.

e.g. Standardized MIME types are useful even if no application supports every one of them.

> This refers to CBOR's indefinite length types, but awkwardly, streaming is a protocol level feature, not a data format level feature.

BER also has indefinite length as well as definite length, but the way that it is doing, is not very good (DER only uses definite length). I think it is more helpful to use a different format when streaming with indefinite length is require, so I made up DSER (and SDSER) which is working as follows:

- The type, which is encoded same as DER.

- If it is constructed, all items it contains come next (the length is omitted).

- If it is primitive, zero or more segments, each of which starts with one byte in range 0x01 to 0xFF telling how many bytes of data are in that segment. (The value is then just the concatenation of all segments together.)

- For both primitive and constructed, one byte with value 0x00 is the termination code.

> Bormann's contribution is the registry, which is bonkers [1]. There's... dozens of extensions there? Hundreds? No CBOR implementation supports anywhere near all this stuff.

It should not need to support all of that stuff; you will only use the ones that are relevant for your program. (There is also the similar kind of complaint with ASN.1, and the similar response that I had made.)

> If something is in high demand, but doesn't have good support across platforms, then you're putting extra burden on those platforms. Ex: it's not great if my tiny microcontroller now has to support bignums or 128-bit UUIDs.

Although it is a valid concern, you would use data which does not have numbers bigger than you need to be, so it can avoid such a problem. You can treat UUIDs like octet strings, although if you only need small numbers then you should use the small numbers types instead, anyways.

> If something isn't in high demand or can't easily be supported across platforms, but you want support for it anyway, there's no need to tell anyone else you're using that thing.

Sometimes it is useful to tell someone else that you are using that thing, although often it is unnecessary, like you said.

> Well, CBOR is MessagePack. Carsten Bormann forked MessagePack

Sure, that’s sort of true but missing context. Bormann (and others) wanted to add things such as separate string and byte sequence types. The MessagePack creator refused for years. Fair enough it’s his format. But it frustrated the community dealing with string vs bytes issues. It also highlights a core philosophical difference of a mostly closed spec vs an extensible first one.

> changed some of the tag values, wrote a standard around it, and submitted it to the IETF against the wishes of MessagePack's creators.

That’s just incorrect and a childish way to view it in my opinion.

The core philosophy and mental models are different in key aspects.

MessagePack is designed as a small self mostly closed format. It uses a simple TLV format with a couple hundred possible user extensions and some clever optimizations. The MP “spec” focuses on this.

CBOR re-envisioned the core idea of MessagePack from the ground up as an extensible major/minor tag system. It’s debatable how much CBOR is a fork of MPack vs a new format with similarities.

The resulting binary output is pretty similar with similar benefits but the core theoretical models are pretty different. The IETF standard bares little to no resemblance to the MessagePack specification.

> The facilities are the same (well, the tag is 8 bytes instead of 1 byte, but w/e); it's TLV all the way down (Bormann ripped this also).

The whole point of CBOR is that the tags go from 1-8 bytes. The parser designs end up fairly different due to the different tag formats. I’ve written and ported parsers for both.

It’s not like the MessagePack creator invented TLV formats either. He just created an efficient and elegant one that’s pretty general. No one says he ripped off “TLV”.

You can’t just take a message pack parser and turn it into a CBOR one by changing some values. I’ve tried and it turns out poorly and doesn't support much of CBOR.

> This refers to CBOR's indefinite length types, but awkwardly, streaming is a protocol level feature, not a data format level feature.

The indefinite length format is very useful for embedded space. I’ve hit limits with MessagePack before on embedded projects because you need to know the length of an array upfront. I wished I’d had CBOR instead.

This can also be useful for data processing applications. For example streaming the conversion of a large XML file into a more concise CBOR format would be much more memory efficient. For large scale that’s pretty handy.

> > However, MessagePack sacrifices human-readability > This, of course, applies to CBOR as well.

For the binary format yes. However the CBOR specification defines an official human readable text format for debugging and documentation purposes. It also defines a schema system like json-schema but for CBOR.

Turns out “just some specs” can actually be pretty valuable.

CBOR has some stuff that is nice but would be annoying to reimplement. Like using more bytes to store large numbers than small ones. If you need a quick multipurpose binary format, CBOR is pretty good. The only alternative I’d make manually is just memcpy the bytes of a C struct directly to disk and hope that I won’t encounter a system with different endianness.

I assume you mean as an exercise? Not for actual use in any production system?

If you did mean for production use, I assume you also implement your own encryption, encoding schemes and everything else?

AWS is beginning to support it, starting with certain data-heavy APIs: https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2025/07/amazon-cl...

CBOR isn't a hobby spec. It's integral to the WebAuthn API spec. Every time someone uses a passkey, CBOR is used to exchange messages with the authenticator

CBOR is just MessagePack with an international standard.

International standards are good.

That's not entirely true: with CBOR you can add custom data types through custom tags. A central registry of them is here:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/cbor-tags/cbor-tags.xhtml

This is, for example, used by IPLD (https://ipld.io) to express references between objects through native types (https://github.com/ipld/cid-cbor/).

I think parsing BSON is simpler than parsing JSON, BSON has additional types but the top level is always a document. Whereas the following are all valid JSON:

- `null`

- `"hello"`

- `[1,2,NaN]`

Additionally, BSON will just tell you what the type of a field is. JSON requires inferring it.