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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 18 , May 28 4:00 PM
      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 2 of 18 , Jun 3, 2006
        --- 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 3 of 18 , Jun 3, 2006
          > 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 4 of 18 , Jun 6, 2006
            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.