|
> Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 15:21:12 +0000 > From: john.snelson@oracle.com > To: joefawcett@hotmail.com > CC: xml-dev@lists.xml.org > Subject: Re: [xml-dev] 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 |