3 ms·
We should add namespaces to JSON. And schemas. And schema validation. And stylesheet transformations. Yes, that would all be good... Extensible types would be
by stevoski 13y ago
We should add namespaces to JSON. And schemas. And schema validation. And stylesheet transformations. Yes, that would all be good...
Extensible types would be the next thing to add.
Now that'd be a good extension.
And we could call it Extensible JSON language. A good abbreviation would be XJL.
And eventually we'd have a standards-body defined way of querying JSON documents. We could call it JQuery.
(</sarcasm> just in case...)
- thousande 13y agowe should also have JSON comments
- alanh 13y agoI have no idea why you said this in reply to a sarcastic post, because - we SHOULD have JSON comments. Have you never edited a JSON-based config file? - No one says that HTML or XML shouldn't have had comments - JSON5 already suggests adding comments, so your proposed extension to a sarcastic proposed extension to a serious proposed extension is idempotent
- oever 13y agoHow could you forget processing instructions and stylesheets?
- damagednoob 13y agoSarcasm aside, schemas have been implemented for JSON: http://json-schema.org/ http://json-schema.org/
- coldtea 13y agoSarcasm yes, but mostly a real life exhibit of the slippery slope fallacy. Sure, if we add comments to JSON the next thing it would be transormed into XML, and AJAX would be like SOAP.
- SimHacker 13y agoWe should also add an extension to XML that lets you omit the opening tag. </sarcasm>