- These were the reasons for removing comments:
First, comments turned out to not be very useful.
Second, comments were the most difficult feature to support in JSON
parsers. By removing comments, support for JSON in other languages
became much easier.
Third, removing comments aligns JSON more closely with YAML, allowing
YAML to become a JSON superset. Generally, standards tend to splinter.
It is interesting to see these two merging.
Fourth, I saw examples of comments used to carry information, with an
expectation that applications would have to have custom comment
parsers and generators. That was not a pattern that I wanted to encourage.
As I have said before, I don't anticipate any further changes to JSON.
I think stability is now the most important feature.
- Funny thing is, YAML was designed for human consumption as much as a
more in the LISP camp than the C camp , i.e., designed for expressive
power rather than bit-munging.
Programmers spend half their time looking at code. Ergonomics matter.
If line speed is a premium, why allow insignificant whitespace at all?
If line speed was a premium (and human consumption irrelevant), I'd be
using ASN.1 anyway; it is well established in the telecom world, and
there are tons of software and utilities that will help you with the
Think of comments as something that belong to a separate namespace. The
JSON parser should have no other business with comments than ignoring
them. If ECMAScript syntax for comments is too loose for easy parsing,
The alternative is an informal standard for comment properties that in
effect turns me into a carbon-based compiler and requires applications
to share a notation for comments anyway.
Atif Aziz wrote:
>>I think the real crux...
> As I said, I have a sneaking hunch that the real issue stems from tying
> JSON to YAML. With the comments debate generating some traffic, I feel
> less daring at this point to open up the disappearing of single-quoted
> strings gone as well as unquoted member names (at least on the decoding
> end). I am hoping Douglas will provide some insight so everyone can
> build a better understanding of the decisions that lead to several
> cutbacks in the specs. I think focusing the discussion too much on
> comments is really just avoiding a more fundamental issue. Does anyone
> agree or am I just rambling here?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of
> Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 8:03 PM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: [json] Re: Comments
> I think the real crux of this is simply, you cannot create a json
> format string through encoding from existing data that would contain
> comments (IIRC). It is only from people creating a json format string
> by hand.
> It is a fairly weak argument that the standard should support
> something that is not going to be used by the majority of people and
> probably not in production, from an early version of the standard,
> especially given that there are other ways get the same information
> across using the current standard.
> If you want to block out sections of json for ease of testing, then
> comment out the properties of the objects you are encoding, not /**/
> in some hand edited string.
> If you want to include comments about an object, include it in a
> property of the object.
> If you feel a need to include very detailed breakdowns, write a spec
> for the object your passing, it shouldn't be in the data stream.
> Your suggestion on wording is really avoiding the issue of why it
> should remain when there are other workable alternatives, and
> suggesting that it remain part of the standard just because it was
> once thought to be useful.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> Yahoo! Groups Links