> question arises: How would ad-hoc transient properties be set or > initialized in any old object? With classes being available, why not provide a pathway for developers to define transience correctly in proper OO manner that would be serialization method agnostic, rather than adding a blacklisted array parameter to toJSONString, which IMHO is very poor and shortsighted way of defining transient/temporary keys? You are right that it would not available for plain old objects, or perhaps it could be. Transience would be a property attribute, and could be set just like defining enumerability of properties, although I would hate to suggest another method on Object.prototype.
> Dropping a namespace qualifier is bad because it will lead to local name > collisions (Murphy says). In general, silently dropping names and types > that don't fit in JSON seems like deadly silence, not the golden kind. I thought that dropping namespace qualifier had already been decided on. Is this still in question? I certainly agree that dropping namespaces seems dangerous, and when I asked before it was suggested that there could just simply be multiple identical keys in a JSON serialization output. Seems a little odd to stringify to something that is not even coherent JSON. Kris _______________________________________________ Es4-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss
