Re: JSON Propositions
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Ben Atkin" <ben@...> wrote:
>You don't need a new standard. Just pipe JSMin in front of your JSON parser.
> The standard is respected in most places. Try adding comments and then using a common JSON parser (like the one in Firefox or Chrome) and you'll see an error. Because of that, it's foolish to output JSON that doesn't conform to the spec.
> I'm not especially interested in the three changes in the original thread. What I do find interesting is comment support. JSON is so nice and simple that it's often being used for configuration and not just serialization. In many cases, comments are more useful than problematic in configuration files. For this reason I'm working on making a standard format that is simply JSON+comments, and I'm calling it Eon (EcmaScript Object Notation). I think if you're going to try to come up with your own JSON-like format, you should come up with a file extension and content-type that doesn't contain "json". Some HTTP client libraries will try to parse everything that has the substring "json" in its content type, and it's best not to break those, even though they should arguably be checking for word boundaries.
- 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]