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

Re: Internet Draft

Expand Messages
  • Douglas Crockford
    ... How would that help?
    Message 1 of 17 , Jan 19, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      > One suggestion:
      >
      > It would help, if Generators and Parsers across implementations would
      > use the same names for doing the same thing. A name recommendation,
      > would go, in the respective section 3 or 4.
      >
      > At the moment there is quite a number of names for the same thing!
      > "decode", "encode", "stringify", "eval", "load" and "dump" to name
      > just a few.
      >
      > It would make sense to have one to naming conventions

      How would that help?
    • Josh Sled
      ... [Sorry to reply to this rather than the original, but I never received it. :/] In Section 5 you assert that the MIME media type is text/json ... is that
      Message 2 of 17 , Jan 19, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 15:03 -0800, Martin Cooper wrote:
        > On 1/18/06, Douglas Crockford <douglas@...> wrote:
        > >
        > > I have submitted a draft to IETF. You can see it here:
        > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-jsonorg-json-00.txt

        [Sorry to reply to this rather than the original, but I never received
        it. :/]

        In Section 5 you assert that the MIME media type is "text/json" ... is
        that true? I can't find evidence of this.

        --
        ...jsled
        http://asynchronous.org/ - `a=jsled; b=asynchronous.org; echo ${a}@${b}`
      • Douglas Crockford
        ... My intention is to have IANA bless text/json . They first want to see an IETF RFC. The first step in creating an RFC is the submission of an Internet
        Message 3 of 17 , Jan 19, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          > In Section 5 you assert that the MIME media type is "text/json" ... is
          > that true? I can't find evidence of this.

          My intention is to have IANA bless "text/json". They first want to see
          an IETF RFC. The first step in creating an RFC is the submission of an
          Internet Draft to IETF. That is where we are now.
        • Martin Cooper
          ... IMHO, this would be a better - and more honest - explanation than just saying it s confusing. -- Martin Cooper Leading zeros are subject to confusion. The
          Message 4 of 17 , Jan 19, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            On 1/19/06, Douglas Crockford <douglas@...> wrote:
            >
            > > * In section 2.5 on numbers, there is the statement "Leading zeros
            > are not
            > > allowed as that could lead to confusion". I don't understand why leading
            > > zeros would be confusing, expecially when octal and hex forms are not
            > > supported.
            >
            > In JavaScript, leading zero means octal. If JSON allowed leading zeros
            > that do not indicate octal, then it would not be a subset of
            > JavaScript. JSON seeks to be minimal, portable, and a subset of
            > JavaScript.


            IMHO, this would be a better - and more honest - explanation than just
            saying it's confusing.

            --
            Martin Cooper


            Leading zeros are subject to confusion. The public schools tell us
            > they indicate non-significance in decimal. The C languages tell us
            > they indicate octal. Since they ultimately carry no information, it is
            > best to do away with them.
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Robert Cerny
            ... It would help developers, in particular those, who use JSON in many languages. More likley that the first guess is right, less time searching docs. Even on
            Message 5 of 17 , Jan 19, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In json@yahoogroups.com, "Douglas Crockford" <douglas@c...> wrote:

              > > It would help, if Generators and Parsers across implementations would
              > > use the same names for doing the same thing. A name recommendation,
              > > would go, in the respective section 3 or 4.
              > >
              >
              > How would that help?
              >
              It would help developers, in particular those, who use JSON in many
              languages. More likley that the first guess is right, less time
              searching docs. Even on completion you got better chances. So to cut
              it short: More fun working. And if that isn't something worth aspiring to.
            • Andrew Durdin
              ... A few comments: 1. Is there any reason you re specifying characters in two different styles? For example, in 2.0 you ve got: = %x7B
              Message 6 of 17 , Jan 19, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                On 1/19/06, Douglas Crockford <douglas@...> wrote:
                > I have submitted a draft to IETF. You can see it here:
                > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-jsonorg-json-00.txt

                A few comments:

                1. Is there any reason you're specifying characters in two different
                styles? For example, in 2.0 you've got:

                <begin-object> = %x7B ; { left brace

                Then in 2.1, you have:

                space U+0020 Space

                Why the difference? If the declarations as per 2.1 form part of a
                grammar in the syntax expected by some common parser generator, then
                why isn't whitespace declared in the same form?


                2. Why the esoteric name "reverse virgule" (section 2.6 and
                throughout) ? The normative name in Unicode 4 for U+005C is "reverse
                solidus", with "backslash" as an alias. I recommend using the term
                "backslash" throughout (as it will be more familiar to readers) and
                mentioning the name "reverse solidus" in section 2.6 where you give
                the code point (and similarly giving the normative names for other
                characters where you give the code point -- for example U+007B is
                "left curly bracket", U+0009 is "character tabulation").


                3. In section 6, you use the vague term "safe". I think a better
                description would be useful, something along the lines of "A text
                containing only JSON tokens is safe to eval because the JSON subset of
                JavaScript does not contain any assignments, function calls, or other
                executable statements."


                Cheers,

                Andrew
              • Douglas Crockford
                Thank you everyone on your comments on the Internet Draft. I am preparing a revision. I have encorporated most of your suggestions. The current state can be
                Message 7 of 17 , Feb 2, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  Thank you everyone on your comments on the Internet Draft. I am
                  preparing a revision. I have encorporated most of your suggestions.
                  The current state can be found at
                  http://www.json.org/draft-crockford-jsonorg-json-01.txt
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.