On Tue, 25 Oct 2005, boblq wrote:
> Looks good to me. It is an alternative to XML
> for data exchange.
>
> http://www.crockford.com/JSON/xml.html
>
> Comments?
1. i totally agree with the claims - XML is human-unreadable. it took me
quite a while to get over the ugliness and start using it in my
applications - and now it should be used only because it is more-or-less
"standard".
2. json seems to be missing a few higher-level notions, that i found very
important for use in '.ini' files that are editable by humans:
1. support the comments inside the parse tree, so it'll be possible to
read in a config file that has comments, alter it inside the
program, and save it without loosing the original format and
comments.
for some reason, many library writers miss this issue (perhaps
because it is not trivial to support).
2. support for a forest of json objects. this is necessary to support
features such as a program having a system-wide config file and an
(optional) per-user config file, whose options override the original
config file.
the 2nd issue can be handled by writting a library to work on top of json.
the 1st issue requires extra functionality by the native json library -
perhaps enhancing its structure to support in-tree comments, in some
manner.
--
guy
"For world domination - press 1,
or dial 0, and please hold, for the creator." -- nob o. dy
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
