Re: [json] Comments
- "These properties make JSON an ideal data-interchange language." -
I'm not sure comments belong at all in a data exchange format. The site
description never specifies that JSON's only purpose is data exchange, but I
imagine that most people are using it as just that. The thought of adding
comments into my JSON going back and forth never occurred to me, and hasn't
come up in the app I am writing. My app uses JSON heavily to talk to the
server and pass objects and mass collections of properties from many objects
back and forth.
If you need to provide comments to a client via json, shouldn't it be part
of the object your passing, rather than some meta data that the parser is
just going to remove anyway?
If you need to comment out sections of the json string or add comments,
shouldn't that be done on your base language object which is then converted
to json? The existence of comments in a json string, seems pointless unless
you are parsing the string manually, and not with a json.decode type method.
The only purpose I see to including comments would be allow people who are
manually creating json strings to easily remove sections of their object,
but that's just as easily done by doing what the previous paragraph
suggests, creating the objects and then encoding them to a json string.
I would not be upset to see them removed, but would like to see /* */ stay
Matthew P. C. Morley
MPCM Technologies Inc.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- Funny thing is, YAML was designed for human consumption as much as a
more in the LISP camp than the C camp , i.e., designed for expressive
power rather than bit-munging.
Programmers spend half their time looking at code. Ergonomics matter.
If line speed is a premium, why allow insignificant whitespace at all?
If line speed was a premium (and human consumption irrelevant), I'd be
using ASN.1 anyway; it is well established in the telecom world, and
there are tons of software and utilities that will help you with the
Think of comments as something that belong to a separate namespace. The
JSON parser should have no other business with comments than ignoring
them. If ECMAScript syntax for comments is too loose for easy parsing,
The alternative is an informal standard for comment properties that in
effect turns me into a carbon-based compiler and requires applications
to share a notation for comments anyway.
Atif Aziz wrote:
>>I think the real crux...
> As I said, I have a sneaking hunch that the real issue stems from tying
> JSON to YAML. With the comments debate generating some traffic, I feel
> less daring at this point to open up the disappearing of single-quoted
> strings gone as well as unquoted member names (at least on the decoding
> end). I am hoping Douglas will provide some insight so everyone can
> build a better understanding of the decisions that lead to several
> cutbacks in the specs. I think focusing the discussion too much on
> comments is really just avoiding a more fundamental issue. Does anyone
> agree or am I just rambling here?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of
> Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 8:03 PM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: [json] Re: Comments
> I think the real crux of this is simply, you cannot create a json
> format string through encoding from existing data that would contain
> comments (IIRC). It is only from people creating a json format string
> by hand.
> It is a fairly weak argument that the standard should support
> something that is not going to be used by the majority of people and
> probably not in production, from an early version of the standard,
> especially given that there are other ways get the same information
> across using the current standard.
> If you want to block out sections of json for ease of testing, then
> comment out the properties of the objects you are encoding, not /**/
> in some hand edited string.
> If you want to include comments about an object, include it in a
> property of the object.
> If you feel a need to include very detailed breakdowns, write a spec
> for the object your passing, it shouldn't be in the data stream.
> Your suggestion on wording is really avoiding the issue of why it
> should remain when there are other workable alternatives, and
> suggesting that it remain part of the standard just because it was
> once thought to be useful.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> Yahoo! Groups Links