- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 06:06:23 +0000 (UTC)
(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