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

Re: [json] JSON.org grammar

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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.