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

Re: [json] Re: Introduction Date and Function objects to the standard [DATE PARSER]

Expand Messages
  • Martin Cooper
    ... Why the C format? Why not base it on the ISO standard, if we have to include dates in JSON? And if the above format actually defines what you have, then
    Message 1 of 18 , May 26, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      On 5/26/06, Greg Patnude <gpatnude@...> wrote:
      >
      > I have a JSON compatible date parser which converts a stringified
      > version of a C-Type date (mm-dd-yyyy hh:mm:ss.nnnn [AM:PM]) into a
      > JavaScript native Date object format...


      Why the C format? Why not base it on the ISO standard, if we have to include
      dates in JSON? And if the above format actually defines what you have, then
      how would I specify the time zone? Or is it assumed to be UTC?

      I will offer it to the JSON community to be included as a component of
      > the json.js library -- provided under the JSON License (Doug's "Good
      > NOT Evil" license)...
      >
      > Speaking of the "Good NOT Evil" license -- is anyone interested in
      > formalizing that ? like the myriad licensing already available -- GPL,
      > or LGPL, or BSD Licenses... we could call it the "GNOTE" license....


      No, no, no! There are already dozens and dozens of open source licenses.
      There is absolutely no good reason to invent another one. Do you have any
      idea how much legal crap creating a new license creates for any company or
      other organisation that actually wants to use the associated software? If
      you want to formalise the license, please, please pick one of these:

      http://www.opensource.org/licenses/

      I'd suggest the Apache License 2.0, which pretty much says you can do
      whatever you want with the software as long as you keep the original license
      in place.

      --
      Martin Cooper


      --- In json@yahoogroups.com, Lindsay <lindsay@...> wrote:
      > >
      > > Fang Yidong wrote:
      > > > I think why JSON be successful as a data-interchange
      > > > format is its simplicity and neutral nature for many
      > > > languages. Adding function definition just make JSON
      > > > stick to javascript. As to the datatype 'Date',you can
      > > > use number or string to represent it.
      > > >
      > >
      > > Agreed. Maybe define a std date format, there's a ISO one which
      > would do
      > > fine.
      > >
      > >
      > > --
      > > Lindsay
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Christopher Stumm
      ... Maybe I m missing something, but why wouldn t one simply use the standard unix time? It does not rely on time-zones (which people seem to largely ignore on
      Message 2 of 18 , May 26, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        On 26 May, 2006, at 12:31, Martin Cooper wrote:

        > On 5/26/06, Greg Patnude <gpatnude@...> wrote:
        > >
        > > I have a JSON compatible date parser which converts a stringified
        > > version of a C-Type date (mm-dd-yyyy hh:mm:ss.nnnn [AM:PM]) into a
        > > JavaScript native Date object format...
        >
        > Why the C format? Why not base it on the ISO standard, if we have to
        > include
        > dates in JSON? And if the above format actually defines what you
        > have, then
        > how would I specify the time zone? Or is it assumed to be UTC?

        Maybe I'm missing something, but why wouldn't one simply use the
        standard
        unix time? It does not rely on time-zones (which people seem to largely
        ignore
        on the internet), and is likely supported already by most languages, JS
        included.
        In addition it can easily be sent around as a simple int.

        -Christopher
      • Dave Balmer
        Greg, I ve given this a bit of thought too, but in the end this would only complicate matters exponentially. Making a simple data parser is one thing, but
        Message 3 of 18 , May 26, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Greg,

          I've given this a bit of thought too, but in the end this would only
          complicate matters exponentially. Making a simple data parser is one
          thing, but adding in a language parser (much less many language
          parsers) on top of that just isn't practical.

          Taking this "next logical step" would in fact narrow JSON's use as a
          lightweight data exchange format, and limit adoption.

          There's nothing which says you can't rig something (there are several
          applications which abuse CDATA in XML to introduce in-line code, for
          example), but I see no value in adding it to the specs.

          Dave


          On May 26, 2006, at 8:33 AM, Greg Patnude wrote:

          > I think everyone is missing teh point I am trying to make --- I truly
          > believe that "Object Notation" is the holy grail of data interchange.
          > As a result, I would like to see object notation extended beyond just
          > support for JavaScript (JSON) to every language --
          >
          > If we are truly talking about Object Notation -- then the parser(s)
          > need to support all of the native object types for any given
          > programming language -- If we are only talking about JavaScript
          > Object Notation -- then I would expect the parser(s) to support all
          > of the object / data types native to JavaScript.
          >
          > So -- if JSON is to TRULY represent the JavaScript Objects -- in
          > addition to String, Number, Array, Object, true, false, and null
          > objects -- the parser should also necessarily include
          >
          > • Date
          > • Math
          > • Function
          > • RegExp
          > and
          > • Boolean objects...
          >
          > My desire is to see object notation become mainstream -- much more
          > than JSON and bigger than XML even -- In order to accomplish that --
          > we would really need an object notation parser for every language
          > that is to be supported -- the purpose of the parser(s) would be to
          > convert the object notation format to and from native language
          > objects (NLO's) and variable data types...
          >
          > So, in a JavaScript implementation -- the parser would support all of
          > the JavaScript core data types: OBject, Array, Function, String,
          > Date, Number, etc...
          >
          > In a VBScript implementation: the parser would support Variant,
          > String, Number, Array, etc...
          >
          > You get the idea -- basically -- I am proposing a "type-mapping"
          > mechanism and wrappers that support a language independent
          > implementation of object-notation
          >
          >
          > --- In json@yahoogroups.com, Lindsay <lindsay@...> wrote:
          > >
          > > Fang Yidong wrote:
          > > > I think why JSON be successful as a data-interchange
          > > > format is its simplicity and neutral nature for many
          > > > languages. Adding function definition just make JSON
          > > > stick to javascript. As to the datatype 'Date',you can
          > > > use number or string to represent it.
          > > >
          > >
          > > Agreed. Maybe define a std date format, there's a ISO one which
          > would do
          > > fine.
          > >
          > >
          > > --
          > > Lindsay
          > >
          >
          >

          ---
          "Mean people suck." -- unknown
        • Greg Patnude
          It is originally based on converting a date-time string from an ANSI SQL database into a JavaScript UTC time... The ANSI SQL datetime (timestamp) appeared to
          Message 4 of 18 , May 26, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            It is originally based on converting a date-time string from an ANSI
            SQL database into a JavaScript UTC time... The ANSI SQL datetime
            (timestamp) appeared to be "closest to" the JavaScript Date()
            constructor at the time I developed the library --

            var dt = new Date("mm-dd-yy hh:mm:ss.ms");


            Since 99.999% of the dates / times I display in the UI come from the
            RDBMS -- this also made a lot of sense at the time....

            RE: Unix date / time -- not everyone is into Unix... many people
            appear to be using PHP, Perl, and ASP... Personally -- if it were
            100% Unix / C / Java / ANSI SQL types -- I would be a happy camper...
            but... we gotta provide support for the greatest common
            denominator... not the lowest common denominator...



            --- In json@yahoogroups.com, Christopher Stumm <christopher@...>
            wrote:
            >
            > On 26 May, 2006, at 12:31, Martin Cooper wrote:
            >
            > > On 5/26/06, Greg Patnude <gpatnude@...> wrote:
            > > >
            > > > I have a JSON compatible date parser which converts a
            stringified
            > > > version of a C-Type date (mm-dd-yyyy hh:mm:ss.nnnn [AM:PM])
            into a
            > > > JavaScript native Date object format...
            > >
            > > Why the C format? Why not base it on the ISO standard, if we
            have to
            > > include
            > > dates in JSON? And if the above format actually defines what you
            > > have, then
            > > how would I specify the time zone? Or is it assumed to be UTC?
            >
            > Maybe I'm missing something, but why wouldn't one simply use the
            > standard
            > unix time? It does not rely on time-zones (which people seem to
            largely
            > ignore
            > on the internet), and is likely supported already by most
            languages, JS
            > included.
            > In addition it can easily be sent around as a simple int.
            >
            > -Christopher
            >
          • Fang Yidong
            It s not necessary to add Date SPEC to JSON to make things work. JSON just give you the freedom to do whatever you want. I ve used JSON.simple to exchange
            Message 5 of 18 , May 26, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              It's not necessary to add Date SPEC to JSON to make
              things work. JSON just give you the freedom to do
              whatever you want.

              I've used JSON.simple to exchange millions of records
              contains date and time fields from Oracle to
              Postgres,it works very well and just 2 or 3 lines
              added to convert the date and time format between
              Oracle and Postgres,without the Date SPEC.

              So I think the core primitive datetype
              String,True,False,Number and Null of JSON is enough.

              --- Greg Patnude <gpatnude@...>:

              > It is originally based on converting a date-time
              > string from an ANSI
              > SQL database into a JavaScript UTC time... The ANSI
              > SQL datetime
              > (timestamp) appeared to be "closest to" the
              > JavaScript Date()
              > constructor at the time I developed the library --
              >
              > var dt = new Date("mm-dd-yy hh:mm:ss.ms");
              >
              >
              > Since 99.999% of the dates / times I display in the
              > UI come from the
              > RDBMS -- this also made a lot of sense at the
              > time....
              >
              > RE: Unix date / time -- not everyone is into Unix...
              > many people
              > appear to be using PHP, Perl, and ASP... Personally
              > -- if it were
              > 100% Unix / C / Java / ANSI SQL types -- I would be
              > a happy camper...
              > but... we gotta provide support for the greatest
              > common
              > denominator... not the lowest common denominator...
              >
              >
              >
              > --- In json@yahoogroups.com, Christopher Stumm
              > <christopher@...>
              > wrote:
              > >
              > > On 26 May, 2006, at 12:31, Martin Cooper wrote:
              > >
              > > > On 5/26/06, Greg Patnude <gpatnude@...> wrote:
              > > > >
              > > > > I have a JSON compatible date parser which
              > converts a
              > stringified
              > > > > version of a C-Type date (mm-dd-yyyy
              > hh:mm:ss.nnnn [AM:PM])
              > into a
              > > > > JavaScript native Date object format...
              > > >
              > > > Why the C format? Why not base it on the ISO
              > standard, if we
              > have to
              > > > include
              > > > dates in JSON? And if the above format actually
              > defines what you
              > > > have, then
              > > > how would I specify the time zone? Or is it
              > assumed to be UTC?
              > >
              > > Maybe I'm missing something, but why wouldn't one
              > simply use the
              > > standard
              > > unix time? It does not rely on time-zones (which
              > people seem to
              > largely
              > > ignore
              > > on the internet), and is likely supported already
              > by most
              > languages, JS
              > > included.
              > > In addition it can easily be sent around as a
              > simple int.
              > >
              > > -Christopher
              > >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              > --------------------~-->
              > Home is just a click away. Make Yahoo! your home
              > page now.
              >
              http://us.click.yahoo.com/DHchtC/3FxNAA/yQLSAA/1U_rlB/TM
              >
              --------------------------------------------------------------------~->
              >
              >
              >
              > Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              > json-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >



              ___________________________________________________________
              JSON: Action in AJAX!

              JSON - http://www.json.org
              JSON.simple - http://www.json.org/java/simple.txt




              ___________________________________________________________
              雅虎免费邮箱-3.5G容量,20M附件
              http://cn.mail.yahoo.com/
            • Lindsay
              ... Agreed. I d like to see a std for dates as they are very commonly used and nearly count as a scalar type :) But stick to the KISS principle. Feature bloat
              Message 6 of 18 , May 28, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                Dave Balmer wrote:
                > Greg,
                >
                > I've given this a bit of thought too, but in the end this would only
                > complicate matters exponentially. Making a simple data parser is one
                > thing, but adding in a language parser (much less many language
                > parsers) on top of that just isn't practical.
                >

                Agreed. I'd like to see a std for dates as they are very commonly used
                and nearly count as a scalar type :) But stick to the KISS principle.
                Feature bloat his killed a lot of stds.


                --
                Lindsay
              • Kevin Smith
                ... I completely agree. We were unable to use the GNOTE-licensed code in either our GPL application, or in our other app that s currently closed-source.
                Message 7 of 18 , Jun 3, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In json@yahoogroups.com, "Martin Cooper" wrote:
                  >
                  > On 5/26/06, Greg Patnude <gpatnude@...> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > Speaking of the "Good NOT Evil" license -- is anyone interested in
                  > > formalizing that ? like the myriad licensing already available --
                  > > GPL, or LGPL, or BSD Licenses... we could call it the "GNOTE"
                  > > license....
                  >
                  >
                  > No, no, no! There are already dozens and dozens of open source
                  > licenses. There is absolutely no good reason to invent another one.
                  > Do you have any idea how much legal crap creating a new license
                  > creates for any company or other organisation that actually wants
                  > to use the associated software?

                  I completely agree. We were unable to use the GNOTE-licensed code in
                  either our GPL application, or in our other app that's currently
                  closed-source. Fortunately, we found a json implementation under a
                  simpler license, so we didn't have to re-invent it from scratch.

                  Personally, my big problem with the GNOTE license is: WHO decides what
                  is evil? Some folks thing gays are evil, while others think that
                  anti-gay behavior is evil. Some folks think Bin Laden is evil, but
                  I'm pretty sure he thinks his enemies are the evil ones. Worse...what
                  is "evil" can change over time, so I might be allowed to use the
                  software today, but next year my use might be considered evil by the
                  license holder.

                  It's a great idea, but just doesn't work in practice. Basically, it
                  will either discourage people from using the software, or will
                  encourage people to ignore or violate the license, whether
                  intentionally, or due to a disagreement over what is evil. Pretty much
                  anyone who takes licenses seriously will not be able to use GNOTE
                  software.

                  > I'd suggest the Apache License 2.0, which pretty much says you can
                  > do whatever you want with the software as long as you keep the
                  > original license in place.

                  Except that Apache License 2.0 code (arguably) can't be linked with
                  GPL software, which is unfortunate. For widest compatibility with
                  other licenses, I prefer the MIT-style license, which is even more
                  liberal. The LGPL also tends to work well with proprietary and Free
                  software.

                  Kevin
                • Michal Migurski
                  ... Except for time zones. ... As another poster commented, unix epoch is a great transmission format thanks to its explicit treatment of time zones. Every
                  Message 8 of 18 , Jun 3, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    > var dt = new Date("mm-dd-yy hh:mm:ss.ms");
                    >
                    >
                    > Since 99.999% of the dates / times I display in the UI come from the
                    > RDBMS -- this also made a lot of sense at the time....

                    Except for time zones.

                    > RE: Unix date / time -- not everyone is into Unix... many people
                    > appear to be using PHP, Perl, and ASP... Personally -- if it were
                    > 100% Unix / C / Java / ANSI SQL types -- I would be a happy camper...
                    > but... we gotta provide support for the greatest common
                    > denominator... not the lowest common denominator...

                    As another poster commented, unix epoch is a great transmission
                    format thanks to its explicit treatment of time zones. Every language
                    I deal with in my work uses it (PHP, Python, ECMA-, Action-, and
                    JavaScript in milliseconds), and I find it vastly preferable when
                    moving data between web servers, DB servers, and client browsers that
                    are in unknown locations. The Atom spec does something similar, by
                    requiring dates to be expressed in UTC.

                    I'm generally opposed to the inclusion of dates and functions into
                    javascript, though. Python has four ways to describe dates, and PHP
                    limits what can be done with functions as data. No sense in taking a
                    simple, beautiful spec and complicating it just to satisfy a few edge
                    cases.

                    -mike.

                    ----------------------------------------------------------------
                    michal migurski- contact info and pgp key:
                    sf/ca http://mike.teczno.com/contact.html
                  • Martin Cooper
                    ... ... No, that s not the case (and there is no arguably ;), at least from an ASF perspective. There is a policy in place at the Apache Software
                    Message 9 of 18 , Jun 6, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On 6/3/06, Kevin Smith <yahoogroups@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > --- In json@yahoogroups.com, "Martin Cooper" wrote:


                      <snip/>

                      > I'd suggest the Apache License 2.0, which pretty much says you can
                      > > do whatever you want with the software as long as you keep the
                      > > original license in place.
                      >
                      > Except that Apache License 2.0 code (arguably) can't be linked with
                      > GPL software, which is unfortunate.


                      No, that's not the case (and there is no "arguably" ;), at least from an ASF
                      perspective.

                      There is a policy in place at the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) that
                      states that ASF projects cannot have required dependencies on, or bundle,
                      libraries licensed under the GPL or certain other licenses. What that means
                      is that whenever you download ASF software, you can be absolutely sure that
                      there are no "tricks up our sleeve" and you do not suddenly find yourself
                      using additional software, with incompatible licenses, that you may not have
                      expected.

                      That is _completely_ different from what you, as a user of ASF software,
                      choose to do with it. If you want to build an application that includes ASF
                      and GPL software, that is absolutely fine with the ASF.

                      For widest compatibility with
                      > other licenses, I prefer the MIT-style license, which is even more
                      > liberal. The LGPL also tends to work well with proprietary and Free
                      > software.


                      I'd agree that the MIT license is very flexible, but I'd suggest caution
                      with the LGPL in a business environment. But this is getting way off-topic
                      for this list...

                      --
                      Martin Cooper


                      Kevin
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Yahoo! Groups Links
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >


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