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

Re: Why we have to waste our time?

Expand Messages
  • Douglas Crockford
    JSON is completely unencumbered. There are no registration, licensing, or usage requirements or restrictions. You are free to write your own software or to use
    Message 1 of 33 , Aug 12, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      JSON is completely unencumbered. There are no registration, licensing, or usage requirements or restrictions. You are free to write your own software or to use any of the many open packages that are available. One of those, json2.js, is public domain, so you are free to use it, change it, and redistribute it in any way you like. JSON offers you total freedom.

      You seem to be demanding the right to force your opinions on others. That is a right you do not have. You can attempt to persuade others by doing good work and offering good arguments. If you find that you are unable to convince others, then improve your work and improve your arguments.
    • Martin Cooper
      On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 10:15 AM, Andrea Giammarchi
      Message 33 of 33 , Aug 12, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 10:15 AM, Andrea Giammarchi <
        andrea.giammarchi@...> wrote:

        > I have created dunno how many JSON open source parsers but json2.js is
        > apparently frequently updated and being the "unofficial" standard adopted
        > by
        > most recent browsers tell me why "we", as developers, should put effort for
        > something that is already defined elsewhere where posts like "please
        > consider this feature" are not considered at all (neither welcome)


        I think you just answered your own question. The reason you, or I, or
        someone else, would create a project on, say, Google Code, for a new JSON
        implementation is precisely so that posts like "please consider this
        feature" *are* considered.

        As for creating a project separate, and different, from the "unofficial"
        standard, there are numerous cases of open source alternatives to reference
        implementations, including cases in which the alternatives have become at
        least as widely used as the RIs themselves.

        --
        Martin Cooper



        > On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Martin Cooper <mfncooper@...>
        > wrote:
        >
        > >
        > >
        > > Fang is correct that there is no "official" JSON parser, and also that
        > > json2.js could be considered a reference implementation (RI).
        > >
        > > Since Douglas unilaterally controls this RI, it is only ever going to
        > > include what is in the JSON specification, or what Douglas perceives will
        > > become part of a future version of that specification.
        > >
        > > More than once, I've considered taking the code from json2.js (which is
        > > Public Domain, after all), creating an open source project out of it, and
        > > enhancing it to do things a bit differently and / or add capabilities
        > that
        > > I've seen a need for and people have expressed a desire for. It's my
        > > impression that so many people use json2.js simply because it's there and
        > > because nobody has gone ahead and forked it into a more complete library.
        > > Why have I not done that? Honestly, just laziness up to now. It's not
        > like
        > > I
        > > haven't done open source before. ;-)
        > >
        > > --
        > > Martin Cooper
        > >
        > >
        > > On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 12:06 AM, Andrea Giammarchi <
        > > andrea.giammarchi@... <andrea.giammarchi%40gmail.com>> wrote:
        > >
        > > > OK guys, I've got your point.
        > > >
        > > > About "dictating" it was what Douglas said: ES5 and every browser are
        > > going
        > > > to implement json2.js serializer/unserializer API.
        > > > JSON is basically JavaScript "quirk" syntax, eval without modifications
        > > > indeed, it comes from ECMAScript specs, and it uses string transformed
        > > from
        > > > Unicode, again JavaScript natural strings encoding.
        > > >
        > > > I thought this mailing list was not only about the protocol, but about
        > > > everything around it, parsers included, I was obviously wrong.
        > > >
        > > > If you manage JSON via server side languages and/or for databases does
        > > not
        > > > change that much the fact dates are a lost transformations.
        > > >
        > > > Again, I never thought about changing JSON protocol as is, I just
        > > > considered
        > > > there is a Date unofficial convention, every parser manages it, which
        > > does
        > > > not come back Dates and I suggested a parser
        > modification/implementation
        > > > that cannot break or change the JSON protocol itself at all.
        > > >
        > > > It is easy for me to change the json2.js file as is to add a method in
        > > > browsers JSON object but obviously if it was something discussed and
        > > > implemented, I am talking about parseISO or whatever name you prefer,
        > it
        > > > would have been good for everybody, without breaking what we have so
        > far,
        > > > and simply adding a common transformation back parser method for every
        > > > language.
        > > >
        > > > Best Regards
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > ------------------------------------
        > > >
        > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > >
        > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > >
        > >
        > >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.