Re: JSON feedback we could submit

On 2013/11/11 12:08, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> To improve JSON interoperability the IETF should not define a more
> restricted version of JSON than defined by Ecma-404.
>
> Parsers exists that can parse "42" today and parsers that cannot parse
> "42" today can be meaningfully upgraded to do so too. This would not
> break those parsers, unless they depend on parsing 42 as an error,
> which is a far more unlikely scenario than parsing it as 42 given
> precedence.

Maybe just a minor point in wording, but of course accepting "42" 
wouldn't break a parser that accepts it. The question is what would 
happen with applications that use such a parser, and that have been 
relying on the parser to return an error up to now.

> (Worth pondering about: what to do about a leading BOM, which
> XMLHttpRequest and browsers allow, but neither IETF nor Ecma-404
> allow.)

What's the percentage of JSON with a BOM for XMLHttpRequest? What's the 
actual practice, for implementations and data, for JSON in contexts 
other than XMLHttpRequest?

Regards,    Martin.

Received on Monday, 11 November 2013 05:54:14 UTC