Andy and I've never really settled on a standard file extension to use for serialized Fan objects. The main contender right now is "fog" for Fan Object Graph, although technically it is a tree, not a graph ("fot" doesn't have a nice ring though).

Any other ideas before "fog" becomes enshrined as convention?

No allowance for internal references? I know JSON avoids that on purpose, but I'm not sure I know all the reasons.

I think "fog" sounds cool either way. Here's what FILExt says about it. Seems clear enough to me.

Could it contain more than one object though?

No allowance for internal references

Correct - cross-references need to use a Uri or some other identifier. For example relational data uses a foreign key. The reason for tree based versus graph based is because its about a zillion times simpler. Plus the tree walking model works for JSON and XML trivially. Its pretty easy to make anything tree based and IMO is a cleaner design anyhow.

Could it contain more than one object though?

In general InStream.readObj is stream based, so you could have multiple objects in a stream. Although I would say its better to just wrap multiple objects in a list. Both of these are a valid serialized object:

"one item"

["one item", "two items"]

No other suggestions? Sounds like "fog" it is then.

strictly 3 letters? :-/

Could be .fanser for fan serialization.

Or, .fang for fan graph.

"fang" was on our original list, along with "floss" for fan language object serialization syntax. Although from that list "fog" was our winner.

I think "fog" is still my fav, so we'll go with that