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
-+ 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