[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: ten years later, time to repeat it?
> > >> 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.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|