Re: [Json] JSON irritants

[John Cowan <[e-mail]>]

Manger, James scripsit:

> Yuck for i800 and f49.399. I’d prefer the presence of a decimal
> point “.” or exponent symbol “e” to imply a float; and their
> absence to imply an integer.

+1.  That is how my JSON parser works in any case.

> Optional commas sounds okay. I wouldn’t like to forbid them as 
> [11, 234, 5, 6] is nicer than [11 234 5 6].

I think an important point is being allowed to include a redundant
final comma.

> Encouraging yyyy-mm-ddThh:mm:ss[.sss…]Z for instants of time is
> great. I’m less sure that distinguishing it from a string is so
> crucial.

Mmm, I think it's good to have it as a separate type.  I don't see any
need for the @ prefix, though.  A date-time literal doesn't look like
anything else.

But as someone who tried with XML 1.1 and XML 1.0 5e, I suspect that
any such effort as this is doomed to obscurity.  The improvements
aren't massive enough to be worth the conversion effort and loss of
interoperability.

FtanML, now ...
<http://www.balisage.net/Proceedings/vol10/print/Kay01/BalisageVol10-Kay01.html>

-- 
John Cowan          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan        [e-mail]
Mos Eisley spaceport.  You will never see a more wretched hive of scum
and villainy --unless you watch the Jerry Springer Show.
        --georgettesworld.com