Re: [json] Re: JSON syntax grammar is missing 'undefined' literal value
- Mark thinks it's boring... we should all move on.
----- Original Message ----
From: Mark Joseph <mark@...>
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.
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
>silly and useless
> addition. Json's goals are not, as far as I understand,
> 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
>>> > consequences.
>> On further thought, this is not any more a security
>> read-only to prevent against non-malicious untended
>>code can change
>> any user code. The entire current concept of browser
>> 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
>> come from a trusted source. Security is fundamentally
>> 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
IM: (Yahoo) mjoseph8888
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]