I think what you're getting is more clever nomenclature, at least, if
you've been programming with Javascript in the browser and have ever
pre-loaded Javascript arrays of objects. The transfer method is
different than loading a <script src="foo.js"> resource, but in the end
a JSON object, within the browser, is a Javascript object.
For it to do anything useful in the browser, without an applet or
plug-in that is, you would expect to have other Javascript objects,
written in the manner (more or less) of a library of prototypes, which
define behavior and navigational code.
BTW, this seems like déjà vu. Shouldn't the comparison really be between
JSON v. YAML ;-)
Robert Koberg wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It seems a lot it is being said about JSON being a better browser
> format than XML. Dare Obesanjo makes the best points in favor of JSON
> - mainly that you can cross domains easily.
>
> But with JSON:
>
> - how do you get the parent object?
> - how can you go directly to an object? (perhaps it is deeply nested
> in an array, in an object, in an array)
> - how do you transform it for a view? do you write your own
> transformation language each time?
>
> Does any of the above matter for JSON?
>
> Will an eval'ed JSON object(s) eventually look like a DOM object?
>
> -Rob
>
>
>
>
