W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > November 2006

[whatwg] JSON encoding

From: Alfonso Baqueiro <abaqueiro@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 13:44:29 -0600
Message-ID: <62942160611041144g2eb55cdanadf8bb2610f3082f@mail.gmail.com>
My two cents as you say:

2006/11/4, Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch>:
>
>
> (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.


Well, I think adding features to javascript is part of its own nature, we
can add features using the prototype without consulting any comitee, thats
powerfull and also could be a source imcopatibility between libraries,
consider the prototype.js library, it really extend the language.

http://prototype.conio.net/dist/prototype-1.4.0.js

--
> Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
> http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
> Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20061104/7e5d61d5/attachment.htm>
Received on Saturday, 4 November 2006 11:44:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:58:49 UTC