Yeah, yeah, thanks to all.
I should have read the RFC thing before even thinking to write about
it. (json.org is well-known, thanks)
Idea not good. Unless, of course, if someone sees otherwise.
Still, I think it was worth bringing your attention to it.
Best regards,
Andrew Revinsky
On Sep
On Sep 25, 2007, at 4:20 PM, Andrew Red wrote:
>
> To explain the subject line, I believe, the concept of JSON strings
> should be described by the following formula:
>
> eval(obj.toJSON()) -> obj,
>
> i.e. toJSON methods should return such a string from an object that if
> evaluated, the result
> Also consider that JSON is not eval'ed unless the regex
> detects that there are no illegal tokens such as function calls that
> would open up a script to hacking
That's only true if you've passed true to String#evalJSON's sanitize
argument - see http://prototypejs.org/api/string/evalJSON for m
Hi,
Regarding your first and 3rd point, Prototype's JSON implementation is
based on RFC 4627 (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4627.txt?number=4627)
and maps Douglas Crockford's JS implementation (http://json.org/
json.js).
JSON is a language agnostic data exchange format which happens to be
easily ev
Andrew Red wrote:
> ...
> 1. Date#toJSON returns a string, if evaluated, it won't become that
> same date again:
>
> I'd like to note that this unit test passes in IE and FF:
> testDate: function() {with(this) {
> var date = new Date();
> assert((eval('new Date('
