Re: [Json] Differences between RFC 4627 or the current ECMAScript specification

[Jorge Chamorro <[e-mail]>]

On 02/10/2013, at 22:40, Tony Hansen wrote:
> On 10/2/2013 4:22 PM, Jorge Chamorro wrote:
>> On 02/10/2013, at 21:27, Tony Hansen wrote:
>>> ******
>>> 1. Introduction
>>> 
>>> JavaScript Object Notation (JSON)
>> No, "JavaScript Object Notation" is *not* "JSON".
>> 
>> JSON is based on, and a subset of, the JavaScript Object Notation.
> 
> I did not change that wording. It is what is in the current draft, and
> in turn was copied directly from RFC 4627.
> 
> Feel free to argue, preferably in a different thread, for a change to
> that sentence.

Ooops, my apologies. For some reason I was reading object literal instead of object notation, I'm sorry.

JSON is based on, and a subset of, the JavaScript object literal notation.

-- 
( Jorge )();