- From: Alfonso Baqueiro <abaqueiro@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 13:44:29 -0600
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