Re: [Json] Meanwhile, out there...

Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com> Sun, 02 March 2014 21:58 UTC

Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D34F1A0B38 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 2 Mar 2014 13:58:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 08EdSBgpwdqK for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 2 Mar 2014 13:58:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lb0-x22b.google.com (mail-lb0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::22b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D24F71A0B34 for <json@ietf.org>; Sun, 2 Mar 2014 13:58:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lb0-f171.google.com with SMTP id w7so4108647lbi.16 for <json@ietf.org>; Sun, 02 Mar 2014 13:58:45 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=1b0MNP19Y0gEpg43dXQxdERejq5ZV2Ip/LjmoeS2GgM=; b=BUjDA/80LUjlTKziYfMM+w85DzTTHJnhlEsKyI6xE7cGDJjewoQqduAl2veWJ5e5Sx uREIihk8qBvGOVadEylJLiI7ezJimJSiV8YmOqy03Ftz/3XcTcwFKDnesmnlVjtQ8/ry shTBVdeU4ZwLuPHzrsZ1LTxsj0T6UlenY6UGETVsoHEZPmiDtvJhgk9Ny2+zf8HvSd8J 6equFsVb9yHzDE5fT1JaFOjUHybNFF3Y2o9mRCu2fyvmerksMVNV/4qw1Wc/5vJUwjnC NMupgNp9O2V+hKtMXdznPscM2KqwqmSNCnAyBeV0Op0Gjt/Ld7wexlzDgAfJhSuOq12k O7Yw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.164.5 with SMTP id ym5mr103323lbb.48.1393797525464; Sun, 02 Mar 2014 13:58:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.112.37.168 with HTTP; Sun, 2 Mar 2014 13:58:45 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20140302164116.GD20855@mercury.ccil.org>
References: <7FE4234C-25BC-4AB9-B0DD-9E1641DB9BE0@mnot.net> <4CA4E293-3252-4082-A40C-DE867D732209@vpnc.org> <CAHBU6is9aq4Ev6zMBRbu+ik0VVbCLmedU9QkKHjxbw9pRjmm2A@mail.gmail.com> <20140302164116.GD20855@mercury.ccil.org>
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2014 21:58:45 +0000
Message-ID: <CAMm+LwjByZD9EAtBn+aBwKCn7mKQQtJJgLVCwAdc8ouwsriiew@mail.gmail.com>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
To: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2681864ea5504f3a6c68b
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/RKgqBcTpslkLIIkYcDFKbHXdHZ0
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, JSON WG <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] Meanwhile, out there...
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" <json.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/json>, <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/json/>
List-Post: <mailto:json@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json>, <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2014 21:58:51 -0000

On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 4:41 PM, John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> wrote:

> Tim Bray scripsit:
>
> > Actually, quite sensible on the surface, aside from allowing
> > +/-Infinity.
>
> I was thinking just the opposite; that's one of the few advantages
> of JSON5.  The rest is nothing but surface syntactic variation, and the
> only time that helps is when you're writing JSON by hand.  (Comments can
> be handled using conventional object keys.)
>
> Paul Hoffman scripsit:
>
> > This appears to only be meant to work in a Javascript program,
> > yes? Otherwise, what the heck does "Object keys can be unquoted if
> > they're valid identifiers" mean?
>
> It means just what it says: that you can omit the quotes around a JSON5
> key if it happens to also be a valid JavaScript identifier.  The only
> reason this isn't already so is that the inventor of JSON didn't want
> to burden the definition of JSON with the list of 57 JavaScript reserved
> words (as of ES3) that can't be identifiers.
>
> In ES5 this isn't a problem any more, but there's a lot of legacy ES3.
>

Since at this point we are far beyond JavaScript, this does not concern me
at all.

For purposes of IETF specs it is probably imprudent to use any reserved
word from SQL, Java, C# or C as a field name.


-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/