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

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

Expand Messages
  • Mark Joseph
    I agree with this totally. And frankly I am finding the current discussion a bit boring and a waste of time. Best, Mark P6R, Inc On Tue, 27 May 2008 09:46:23
    Message 1 of 19 , May 27, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      I agree with this totally. And frankly I am finding the
      current discussion a bit boring and a waste of time.

      Best,
      Mark
      P6R, Inc


      On Tue, 27 May 2008 09:46:23 -0700
      "Tatu Saloranta" <tsaloranta@...> wrote:
      > 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
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>

      -------------------------
      Mark Joseph, Ph.D.
      President and Secretary
      P6R, Inc.
      http://www.p6r.com
      408-205-0361
      Fax: 831-476-7490
      Skype: markjoseph_sc
      IM: (Yahoo) mjoseph8888
      (AIM) mjoseph8888
    • Michal Migurski
      Agree++. Shelby, when you ve got a next-generation semantic web 3.0 mashup demo that desperately needs undefined , we ll be able to see whether it s a useful
      Message 2 of 19 , May 27, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Agree++.

        Shelby, when you've got a next-generation semantic web 3.0 mashup demo
        that desperately needs "undefined", we'll be able to see whether it's
        a useful concept. Until then, I agree with Douglas that it's a waste
        of energy to pull it in to JSON.

        FWIW, I can see how the decision to include "javascript" in the JSON
        name is leading to a mountain of confusion, but I've always seen the
        format as a way to interop between a variety of languages and
        platforms. "Undefined" would really muddy those waters.

        -mike.

        On May 27, 2008, at 10:30 AM, Mark Joseph wrote:

        > I agree with this totally. And frankly I am finding the
        > current discussion a bit boring and a waste of time.
        >
        > Best,
        > Mark
        > P6R, Inc
        >
        > On Tue, 27 May 2008 09:46:23 -0700
        > "Tatu Saloranta" <tsaloranta@...> wrote:
        > > 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
        > >>
        > >>
        > >>
        > >>
        >
        > -------------------------
        > Mark Joseph, Ph.D.
        > President and Secretary
        > P6R, Inc.
        > http://www.p6r.com
        > 408-205-0361
        > Fax: 831-476-7490
        > Skype: markjoseph_sc
        > IM: (Yahoo) mjoseph8888
        > (AIM) mjoseph8888
        >
        >

        ----------------------------------------------------------------
        michal migurski- mike@...
        415.558.1610





        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Gregg Irwin
        Hi Greg, GP As far as JSON goes -- by definition: it is JavaScript Object GP Notation -- so -- on the technical definition -- JSON is in fact a GP
        Message 3 of 19 , May 27, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Greg,

          GP> As far as JSON goes -- by definition: it is "JavaScript Object
          GP> Notation" -- so -- on the technical definition -- JSON is in fact a
          GP> "JavaScript-ONLY" object notation mechanism.

          I've never interpreted it that way. I always took the JS part to mean
          that JSON's syntax was based on JavaScript's syntax, which gives you
          context (and a nice acronym :). From what I've read, JSON is meant to
          be language independent. If they change the JS/ECMA standard to
          something that doesn't support that goal, JSON won't work well with
          its namesake.

          On undefined, I don't think JSON needs it, even if some languages have
          it. In my language of choice, as with some others, dealing with
          undefined can make for more work, and not much more value (IMO). If
          it's undefined, why is it there? Not to say it's never useful, but it
          doesn't seem crucial in an object notation like JSON.

          Ironically, it would probably be easier for me to add undefined/unset
          support to the JSON module for REBOL (my language of choice) than it
          is to support strings as keys in objects (which it can't, really).

          --Gregg
        • John Cowan
          ... Not code. Not name. Not mind. Not things. Always changing, yet never changing. ... A cocky novice once said to Stallman: I can guess why the editor is
          Message 4 of 19 , May 27, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            Greg Patnude scripsit:

            > Most modern programming languages HAVE defined "undefined" --
            > Undefined is NOT 0 and NOT 1, and NOT 'null' AND NOT 'not null', and
            > NOT true and NOT false... Bottom line: undefined is actually defined
            > as something that is NOT DEFINED...

            "Not code. Not name. Not mind. Not things. Always changing, yet never changing."

            > As far as JSON goes -- by definition: it is "JavaScript Object
            > Notation" -- so -- on the technical definition -- JSON is in fact a
            > "JavaScript-ONLY" object notation mechanism.

            A cocky novice once said to Stallman: "I can guess why the editor
            is called Emacs, but why is the justifier called Bolio?" Stallman
            replied forcefully, "Names are but names. 'Emack & Bolio's' is the
            name of a popular ice cream shop in Boston-town. Neither of these men
            had anything to do with the software."

            His question answered, yet unanswered, the novice turned to go,
            but Stallman called to him: "Neither Emack nor Bolio had anything
            to do with the ice cream shop, either."

            This koan is called the "ice cream koan".

            --
            John Cowan cowan@... http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
            Thor Heyerdahl recounts his attempt to prove Rudyard Kipling's theory
            that the mongoose first came to India on a raft from Polynesia.
            --blurb for Rikki-Kon-Tiki-Tavi
          • Tatu Saloranta
            On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 10:19 AM, Greg Patnude wrote: ... I don t think it s true for most (modern) programming languages; although it
            Message 5 of 19 , May 27, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 10:19 AM, Greg Patnude <gpatnude@...> wrote:
              ...
              > Most modern programming languages HAVE defined "undefined" --
              > Undefined is NOT 0 and NOT 1, and NOT 'null' AND NOT 'not null', and
              > NOT true and NOT false... Bottom line: undefined is actually defined
              > as something that is NOT DEFINED...

              I don't think it's true for most (modern) programming languages;
              although it may be true for most _scripting_ languages. This is
              different from, say, null, which has a counterpart in about any
              language including c and c++ (unlike someone claimed earlier).

              > As far as JSON goes -- by definition: it is "JavaScript Object
              > Notation" -- so -- on the technical definition -- JSON is in fact a
              > "JavaScript-ONLY" object notation mechanism. The great thing about

              Not really: you can not derive semantics from etymology. Names are
              just names and like you mention, they can lead to intuitive yet
              incorrect guesses.

              To understand goals, one could consult the author... and Doug has
              already pointed out his view on the matter.

              Additionally reading the JSON RFC, http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4627.txt
              one can find:

              "JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) is a lightweight, text-based,
              language-independent data interchange format"

              Nowhere does it say anything about coupling with Javascript.
              My understanding is that just JS syntax was used. In a funny way makes
              sense: JavaScript has little to do with Java, beyond syntax; and
              similarly JSON just took syntax from Javascript (or, from Java, if you
              will).

              Apologies for prolonging this flogging of a dead horse,

              -+ Tatu +-
            • Shelby Moore
              Thanks to all that replied to my prior post. This is my reply to you all. 1) Undefined is essential in languages that treat identifiers as hash keys of an
              Message 6 of 19 , May 27, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                Thanks to all that replied to my prior post. This is my reply to you all.

                1) Undefined is essential in languages that treat identifiers as hash
                keys of an object (i.e. modern dynamic scripting languages). Static
                identifier languages, can simulate dynamic identifiers with a hash
                collection class.

                2) Afair, K&R (ANSI) C did not have null, only void*. In K&R (ANSI) C,
                void is not valid in a conditional nor assignment expression, and
                identifiers are not dynamically constructed and typed.

                3) Undefined is a critical primitive in any hash object data
                structure, that supports inheritance. I already explained my logic in
                prior post.

                This will all become more obvious to you all, as someone actually
                brings real world application of Semantic Web to reality.

                4) I agree with Douglas not to modify the JSON standard specification,
                but rather to usurp it (JSON+ or whatever it may be called) if the
                market shall be so. I believe in de facto (competing) standards, not
                in centrally managed ones, which is one of the main motivations of the
                development I am working on. I believe in a million points of light
                competing. I believe in freedom and liberty.

                Okay enough talk from me. Your comments have encouraged me. Thanks
                very much to all. And best wishes to all as well.
              • doug furcht
                Mark thinks it s boring... we should all move on. ... From: Mark Joseph To: json@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 11:30:20 AM
                Message 7 of 19 , May 28, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  Mark thinks it's boring... we should all move on.


                  ----- Original Message ----
                  From: Mark Joseph <mark@...>
                  To: json@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 11:30:20 AM
                  Subject: Re: [json] Re: JSON syntax grammar is missing 'undefined' literal value


                  I agree with this totally. And frankly I am finding the
                  current discussion a bit boring and a waste of time.

                  Best,
                  Mark
                  P6R, Inc

                  On Tue, 27 May 2008 09:46:23 -0700
                  "Tatu Saloranta" <tsaloranta@gmail. com> wrote:
                  > 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@coolpage. com> 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
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>

                  ------------ --------- ----
                  Mark Joseph, Ph.D.
                  President and Secretary
                  P6R, Inc.
                  http://www.p6r com
                  408-205-0361
                  Fax: 831-476-7490
                  Skype: markjoseph_sc
                  IM: (Yahoo) mjoseph8888
                  (AIM) mjoseph8888





                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.