Re: JSON feedback we could submit

On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 1:53 PM, "Martin J. Dürst"
<duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> wrote:
> 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.

That's what I said...


>> (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?

I don't know.


-- 
http://annevankesteren.nl/