4 ms·
He didn't propose one. But given the "JS" part of the "JSON" acronym, probably only the first two are reasonable. But the point is, if you are in control of y
by recursive 2y ago
He didn't propose one. But given the "JS" part of the "JSON" acronym, probably only the first two are reasonable.
But the point is, if you are in control of your own parser, you can just use any one of those.
- a3w 2y agoJSON is not JS, says Doug, too. Since he said "any new JSON should not new JS or ON in the name, since we claims it is not a javascript object notation, in the end. Perhaps since JS/ES is changing, and not everything is an object in every language that wants to deal with JSON?
- recursive 2y agoI don't exactly understand what you're talking about but RFC 8259 explicitly says JSON is "javascript object notation".
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- Animats 2y ago> probably only the first two are reasonable. Yet YAML, which is somewhat related to JSON, uses # This is a comment I'm neither pro-comment or anti-comment, but I'm all for standardized comment syntax to avoid parsing hell.