On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 8:58 AM, Benoit Marchant <[email protected]> wrote:
> What's really problematic is that there is no way to specify a version in > the format itself so that it could be evolved without breaking existing > data set. > Exactly! > This has been solved before for serializetion, in Cocoa for example, we > need that for JSON. > You can "solve" that by inventing such a data format and calling it something else. > > Benoit > > On Jun 6, 2013, at 8:54, gaz Heyes <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 6 June 2013 16:29, Allen Wirfs-Brock <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> No it's not JavaScript! It a file format for storing and interchanging >> data. Preserving existing data is a key requirement. >> > > It's syntax is based on JavaScript but crippled for no reason other than > to follow a outdated specification. It's so frustrating to be at this end > of a keyboard to see awful syntax being promoted just to follow the RFC > which is clearly flawed. It's so much more logical to change and fix the > problems in the specification so that in future code will work correctly > and JSON parsers would be much easier and consistent. "Don't break the web" > shouldn't ever become "Keep the web broken" code will never evolve if the > core is rotten. > > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > > > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > > -- Text by me above is hereby placed in the public domain Cheers, --MarkM
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
