• From: Robert Koberg <rob@k...>
• To: Joe Fawcett <joefawcett@h...>
• Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 11:52:59 -0500

> > >> 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.
> > 
> Okay, I'll take a look, but as ECMAScript interpreters accept that
> format it's difficult to see why JSON shouldn't use it.

Pretty much any language/library that handles json accepts it as well.
It is just not correct according to the spec.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: ten years later, time to repeat it?
    • From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@g...>

• References:
  • RE: ten years later, time to repeat it?
    • From: Len Bullard <len.bullard@u...>
  • Re: ten years later, time to repeat it?
    • From: "Pete Cordell" <petexmldev@c...>
  • RE: ten years later, time to repeat it?
    • From: Joe Fawcett <joefawcett@h...>
  • Re: ten years later, time to repeat it?
    • From: John Snelson <john.snelson@o...>
  • RE: ten years later, time to repeat it?
    • From: Joe Fawcett <joefawcett@h...>