- From: Joe Fawcett <joefawcett@h...>
- To: <xml-dev@l...>
- Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 15:51:42 +0000
> Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 15:21:12 +0000
> From: john.snelson@o...
> To: joefawcett@h...
> CC: xml-dev@l...
> Subject: Re: ten years later, time to repeat it?
>
> Joe Fawcett wrote:
> >> That said, JSON seems to be contaminated with JavaScript cruft. For
> >> example, instead of:
> >>
> >> "foo": 123
> >>
> >> you should be able to do:
> >>
> >> foo: 123
> >>
> > You can use that in JSON if you prefer, the quotes are only needed for property names with spaces.
>
> Not according to the grammar at json.org, or the JSON RFC. That's
> probably one of the big problems with JSON - there are lots of subsets
> of Javascript object notation that people think are valid JSON, but
> actually aren't.
>
> John
>
> [1] http://www.json.org/
> [2] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4627.txt
>
> --
> John Snelson, Oracle Corporation http://snelson.org.uk/john
> Berkeley DB XML: http://www.oracle.com/database/berkeley-db/xml
> XQilla: http://xqilla.sourceforge.net
Okay, I'll take a look, but as ECMAScript interpreters accept that format it's difficult to see why JSON shouldn't use it.
Joe
http://joe.fawcett.name/
|
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
|
Cart
