1857Re: JSON Propositions
- Jul 10, 2012Outside of special interpretation of strings, there's only one change I can think of that JSON could make that many existing parsers would be forward compatible with, and that is ordering of pairs within a JSON object. The format is so simple, that it doesn't lend itself to clever hacks. I really like this aspect of JSON.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Tatu Saloranta <tsaloranta@...> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Borislav Iordanov
> <borislav.iordanov@...> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 3:35 PM, Andrew Faulds <ajfweb@...> wrote:
> >> I don't think this is a good idea. One of the best things, if not the best,
> >> about JSON is the lack of a version number. The standard is frozen and will
> >> never change, and because of that there is only one thing called JSON, and
> >> everything that supports "JSON" today will support it tommorow, too.
> > That's a valid argument, but is it such a big deal given that anything
> > in software evolves and it's just natural to deal with versions?
> For some perspective on this, one could consider fate of XML 1.1,
> which actually does not have this issue -- versioning was fully
> defined to allow such upgrade.
> XML 1.1 has some other compatibility issues, but most importantly it
> has not really been used extensively, and seems like a failure.
> So another way to ask this is: would anyone bother using a modified
> version of (textual) JSON externally?
> -+ Tatu +-
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>