(I couldn't work out what thread this was a continuation to -- the first message below didn't have a "Re:" in the subject line, and I can't find any other thread that used the word "hazard". So I don't know exactly what this thread was about. However, I shall not let that stop me from jumping in and giving my two cents...) On Fri, 3 Nov 2006, Douglas Crockford wrote: > > This is a convenience issue. Having toJSONString as a builtin is a > convenience, removing the need to load json.js. Assuming the thread is about introducing a way to convert a JS object into a JSON representation, then I would encourage you to contact the ECMAScript committee. Adding features to JavaScript is out of scope for the WHATWG specs. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'Received on Friday, 3 November 2006 22:06:23 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:58:49 UTC