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

Re: JSON Propositions

Expand Messages
  • Ben Atkin
    It doesn t just make it easy to implement; it also makes it easier to grok. So I think it has a shot at getting some usage. FWIW I m not trying to get people
    Message 1 of 51 , Jul 10, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      It doesn't just make it easy to implement; it also makes it easier to grok. So I think it has a shot at getting some usage.

      FWIW I'm not trying to get people who aren't interested in JSON-style config files with comments into it. There are many who'd like to use YAML, and I'm fine with them using YAML. This is much simpler than YAML. :)

      Ben

      --- In json@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Faulds <ajfweb@...> wrote:
      >
      > I don't think the introduction of comments alone will get your project any
      > adoption, even though it makes it easier to implement.
      >
      > On 10 July 2012 21:43, Ben Atkin <ben@...> wrote:
      >
      > > **
      > >
      > >
      > > Excellent call on removing comments from your JSON parser, despite liking
      > > them. Part of my project with Eon is getting wide language support, so I'm
      > > happy to see the code for the JSON parser for REBOL is maintainable. :)
      > >
      > > Most of the efforts to add comments to JSON gloss over the fact that the
      > > JSON format is both very clear and final, so I think that even though none
      > > of those has really caught on, my project has a chance.
      > >
      > > Ben
      > >
      > >
      > > --- In json@yahoogroups.com, Gregg Irwin <gregg.irwin@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > Thanks for taking the time to write your propositions and post here. I
      > > > agree with others here, Jos making the same points I would (though I
      > > > don't care for YAML myself).
      > > >
      > > > I maintain the REBOL JSON library and, like Ben, like the idea of
      > > > comments. They used to be there, and I only removed support for them
      > > > after Douglas Crockford confirmed that they would never come back, and
      > > > that JSON was meant for machines (e.g. serialization), not humans
      > > > (e.g. configs). I wish Prop II were the standard, but understand the
      > > > reason it isn't.
      > > >
      > > > --Gregg
      > > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      > --
      > Andrew Faulds (AJF)
      > http://ajf.me/
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
    • Jonas Tärnström
      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. //JT
      Message 51 of 51 , Aug 16 5:32 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        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.

        //JT

        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]
        >
        >
        >



        --
        --
        Jonas T�rnstr�m
        Product Manager
        � e-mail: jonas.tarnstrom@...
        � skype: full name "Jonas T�rnstr�m"
        � phone: +46 (0)734 231 552

        ESN Social Software AB
        www.esn.me


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