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

Re: [json] JSON.org grammar

Expand Messages
  • John Cowan
    ... RFC 4627 is definitive. That said, I think it s unfortunate that a a bare number, string, truth value, or null doesn t count as a JSON text. Why was this
    Message 1 of 4 , Aug 26, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Peter Michaux scripsit:

      > I remember having trouble finding out whether or not just a number,
      > for example, counted as valid JSON when I started learning about JSON.

      RFC 4627 is definitive. That said, I think it's unfortunate that a
      a bare number, string, truth value, or null doesn't count as a JSON text.
      Why was this limitation imposed?

      --
      No, John. I want formats that are actually John Cowan
      useful, rather than over-featured megaliths that http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
      address all questions by piling on ridiculous cowan@...
      internal links in forms which are hideously
      over-complex. --Simon St. Laurent on xml-dev
    • Tatu Saloranta
      On a related (?) note: I have heard that comments were allowed at some point (i.e. were proposed as part of formal json grammar). If so, why were they dropped
      Message 2 of 4 , Aug 26, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        On a related (?) note: I have heard that comments were allowed at some
        point (i.e. were proposed as part of formal json grammar). If so, why
        were they dropped (simplicity?).
        Worse: json.org's default parser implementation seems to support
        multiple extensions, which leads developers to assume these are part
        of json, not just that extra features implementation has. :-/

        The reason I am asking this is that I have gotten multiple user
        requests to support comments, and while ideally I would want to stick
        with the standard format, it is hard to argue against supporting
        majority of content found in t he wild (significant portion of which
        allegedly contains such comments -- comments are good places to stick
        debug-info about generator/app that created content, when it was
        created etc).

        -+ Tatu +-

        On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 7:45 AM, John Cowan <cowan@...> wrote:
        > Peter Michaux scripsit:
        >
        >> I remember having trouble finding out whether or not just a number,
        >> for example, counted as valid JSON when I started learning about JSON.
        >
        > RFC 4627 is definitive. That said, I think it's unfortunate that a
        > a bare number, string, truth value, or null doesn't count as a JSON text.
        > Why was this limitation imposed?
        >
        > --
        > No, John. I want formats that are actually John Cowan
        > useful, rather than over-featured megaliths that http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
        > address all questions by piling on ridiculous cowan@...
        > internal links in forms which are hideously
        > over-complex. --Simon St. Laurent on xml-dev
        >
        > ------------------------------------
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >
      • Douglas Crockford
        ... I have removed comments from the reference implementation.
        Message 3 of 4 , Aug 26, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In json@yahoogroups.com, "Tatu Saloranta" <tsaloranta@...> wrote:
          >
          > On a related (?) note: I have heard that comments were allowed at some
          > point (i.e. were proposed as part of formal json grammar). If so, why
          > were they dropped (simplicity?).
          > Worse: json.org's default parser implementation seems to support
          > multiple extensions, which leads developers to assume these are part
          > of json, not just that extra features implementation has. :-/
          >
          > The reason I am asking this is that I have gotten multiple user
          > requests to support comments, and while ideally I would want to stick
          > with the standard format, it is hard to argue against supporting
          > majority of content found in t he wild (significant portion of which
          > allegedly contains such comments -- comments are good places to stick
          > debug-info about generator/app that created content, when it was
          > created etc).


          I have removed comments from the reference implementation.
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.