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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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.