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

1857Re: JSON Propositions

Expand Messages
  • Ben Atkin
    Jul 10, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Outside 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.

      Ben

      --- In json@yahoogroups.com, 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 +-
      >
    • Show all 51 messages in this topic