Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

1056Re: [json] Re: JSON syntax grammar is missing 'undefined' literal value

Expand Messages
  • Tatu Saloranta
    May 27, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      How about moving security-related discussion to another thread or group?

      And with regards to adding keyword 'undefined' to json, I would be
      strongly against adding any such language-specific keywords. As a
      non-javascript-user of json I would find it a rather silly and useless
      addition. Json's goals are not, as far as I understand, to be
      javascript(-only) serialization format, but rather serve as a
      minimalistic generalized object notation.

      -+ Tatu +-

      On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 3:04 AM, Shelby Moore <shelby@...> wrote:
      >> Douglas Crockford wrote:
      >> > As a name, it is implemented as a writable global
      >> > variable, a feature with alarming security and reliability
      >> > consequences.
      > On further thought, this is not any more a security concern, than
      > JavaScript (or the web page) itself. Agreed, it should be made
      > read-only to prevent against non-malicious untended modification.
      > There is no security in any JavaScript, because rogue code can change
      > any user code. The entire current concept of browser security is
      > conceptually flawed, and the solution is as follows:
      > http://www.coolpage.com/commentary/economic/shelby/security.html
      > The only trustable web page is the one where ALL referents (resources)
      > come from a trusted source. Security is fundamentally trust.
      > Increasing granularity of trust, decreases security conflicts. I give
      > a proposal using sub-frames to segregate private data from the rest of
      > the web page.
      > ------------------------------------
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
    • Show all 19 messages in this topic