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

Re: Comments

Expand Messages
  • jemptymethod
    ... of ... to ... OK, this is earlier than I wanted to announce this, but I ve been concerned with the above, plus there are things I want to do that JSON
    Message 1 of 42 , Aug 17, 2005
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In json@yahoogroups.com, Martin Cooper <mfncooper@g...> wrote:
      >
      > 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.

      OK, this is earlier than I wanted to "announce" this, but I've been
      concerned with the above, plus there are things I want to do that JSON
      gets me close to but not quite.

      I promise this will be the only and only time I will bring it up on
      this group, if you want to contact me, feel free to whois my domain
      and email me. Please also bear in mind I am really trying to be low
      key about this, embedding it in a reply to an existing message, rather
      than starting a new thread. In particular, suggestions for different
      names are encourage; I've additionally thought of jsdeclare or jsrules

      To my point:

      I propose a new standard I'm deciding to call JSOX, for "Javascript
      Object Expressions" or JSON eXtended, whichever way you see it. The
      best way to illustrate it is with a file I would like to see
      supported:

      http://htmatters.net/jsox/jsox.html

      Key features/proposals:

      1) optional identifying clause
      2) unquoted strings including identifiers, function definitions, and
      regular expressions, allowed as values; functions and regular
      expressions can provide "hints" to parsers, but don't necessarily need
      to be implemented
      3) multiple expressions per file creating a namespace in which it can
      be attempted to resolve identifiers
      4) reference implementation
      5) multi-person steering committee
      6) backward compatible with JSON
      7) not "yet another (data interchange) markup language" but rather, in
      addition to that, a format suitable for client-server interoperable
      declarative programming

      By the way take the jsox.html off the URL above and descend into the
      com and org directories under jsox/ and you will find my extension of
      Mr Crockford's Java implementation of JSON. The only change made to
      the org.json code was to make one attribute protected instead of
      private. All I've done so far is allow an optional identifier and
      regular expressions, albeit poorly in my estimation.
    • 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
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        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.