RE: [xml-dev] ten years later, time to repeat it?

[Robert Koberg <rob@koberg.com>]

> > >> 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.