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

Re: [json] Comments

Expand Messages
  • Michal Migurski
    ... Multiline comments work well, they re doing no harm, and removing them from the spec may break interoperability with implementations that are not known to
    Message 1 of 42 , Aug 16, 2005
      > > Deleting /* */ comments from the standard should not affect any
      > > existing implementations. Decoders are allowed to recognize non-
      > JSON.
      > > I am not aware of any compliant encoders that emit /* */.
      > >
      > > Comments?

      Multiline comments work well, they're doing no harm, and removing
      them from the spec may break interoperability with implementations
      that are not known to this group, i.e. ones that emit such comments.

      > One other point: I'm beginning to be concerned about the stability of
      > JSON as a spec. Many people are implementing it now, but it appears to
      > be a moving target. Scientific notation showed up on the spec page
      > unannounced (or announced somewhere I didn't see it ;), and now we're
      > discussing changes to the comment formats. Before this gets out of
      > hand, and all hope of interoperability is lost, I'd like to see either
      > more formality in the spec definitions and / or the introduction of
      > versioning, so that I can tell what others are doing, and they can
      > tell what I'm doing.

      Agreed - the addition of scientific notation to the spec was a
      surprise to me, though I did see it discussed here a few times. I
      think JSON may be stable enough at this point to warrant an official
      "1.0" version number, with future additions going into a 2.0 draft
      something-or-other. I don't want to get all W3C here, but it would be
      nice to advertise an implementation's "adherence to JSON v1.0" and
      have that stay meaningful. :)


      michal migurski- contact info, blog, and pgp key:
      sf/ca http://mike.teczno.com/contact.html
    • Peter Ring
      Funny thing is, YAML was designed for human consumption as much as a language-neutral serializing format. And JSON s ancestry (JavaScript) is more in the LISP
      Message 42 of 42 , Jan 5, 2006
        Funny thing is, YAML was designed for human consumption as much as a
        language-neutral serializing format. And JSON's ancestry (JavaScript) is
        more in the LISP camp than the C camp [1], 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
        dirty details.

        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,
        restrict it.

        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.

        [1] http://www.crockford.com/javascript/little.html

        Kind regards
        Peter Ring

        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: json@yahoogroups.com [mailto:json@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
        > MPCM
        > Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 8:03 PM
        > To: json@yahoogroups.com
        > 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.
        > --
        > Matt
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.