Re: [json] Re: Comments
- Douglas Crockford wrote:
>>I don't want to fight too hard on this subject and I hope my intentionsIt can be useful to comment-out sections of hand-coded JSON for
>>are not being misunderstood. It's hard to encourage decoders to
>>recognize and ignore comments when a future implementation will base
>>itself on the contents of what's written presently at
>>http://www.json.org Otherwise it's JSON with comments, but not pure and
>>legal JSON and who wants two camps there? In most cases, however, a new
>>implementation will certainly start from one of the now many JSON
>>bindings than go from scratch. Chances are then that most of them will
>>include support for comments (at least on the parsing end). It worries
>>me when I read things on the net along the lines of, "Yeah, some old
>>JSON parsers support C-style comments."
>I would like to understand your intentions. Where commentary is
>important, it can be encoded directly in JSON, where the outermost
>object resembles a COBOL IDENTIFICATION DIVISION.
>Why specifically do you feel the need for C-style comments?
development/testing, and to have inline human-readable comments about
what is going on. A JSON parser should know to simply ignore these. If
comments are not mentioned in the JSON specification, a parser might
reasonably decline to parse the code at all.
Perhaps a note in the specification to allow this would suffice,
something like: Single-line and multi-line comments as defined in
ECMA-262 may be used in JSON. Contents of comments shall be ignored by
- 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: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of
> Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 8:03 PM
> To: email@example.com
> 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