Re: [json] JSON Propositions
- On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Borislav Iordanov
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 3:35 PM, Andrew Faulds <ajfweb@...> wrote:For some perspective on this, one could consider fate of XML 1.1,
>> I don't think this is a good idea. One of the best things, if not the best,
>> about JSON is the lack of a version number. The standard is frozen and will
>> never change, and because of that there is only one thing called JSON, and
>> everything that supports "JSON" today will support it tommorow, too.
> That's a valid argument, but is it such a big deal given that anything
> in software evolves and it's just natural to deal with versions?
which actually does not have this issue -- versioning was fully
defined to allow such upgrade.
XML 1.1 has some other compatibility issues, but most importantly it
has not really been used extensively, and seems like a failure.
So another way to ask this is: would anyone bother using a modified
version of (textual) JSON externally?
-+ Tatu +-
- The beauty and usefulness of JSON is in my opinion more of what they left
out than what they took in.
Any attempts to extend it is to make it less useful.
2012/7/10 johnnys <marler8997@...>
> I've published a web page with some propositions to modify JSON at
> http://json.marler.info <http://json.marler.info>
> I wanted to post this so I could see what people think of these
> propositions. Any comments/suggestions/criticism are welcome.
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
� e-mail: jonas.tarnstrom@...
� skype: full name "Jonas T�rnstr�m"
� phone: +46 (0)734 231 552
ESN Social Software AB
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]