Re: JSON.org grammar
- --- In email@example.com, "Tatu Saloranta" <tsaloranta@...> wrote:
>I have removed comments from the reference implementation.
> 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).