On 11/03/2008, Alan Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [Graham] > > > The problem areas were, different interpretations of what could be > > supplied in an error response. Whether an integer, string or arbitrary > > object could be supplied as the id attribute in a request. Finally, > > some JavaScript clients would only work with a server side > > implementation which provided introspection methods as they would > > dynamically create a JavaScript proxy object based on a call of the > > introspection methods. > > > These are JSON-RPC concerns, and nothing to do with JSON text > de/serialization. > > I do believe we're only discussing JSON<->python objects > transformation, in this thread at least.
Okay. No problem then. :-) Graham > > Unfortunately the JSON 1.1 draft specification didn't necessarily make > > things better. > > > There is no JSON 1.1 spec; but there is a JSON-RPC 1.1 spec. > > http://json-rpc.org/wiki/specification > > > > Thus my question is, what version of the JSON specification are you > > intending to support. > > > The one specified in RFC 4627 > > http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4627.txt > > Regards, > > > Alan. > > _______________________________________________ > Web-SIG mailing list > [email protected] > Web SIG: http://www.python.org/sigs/web-sig > Unsubscribe: > http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/web-sig/graham.dumpleton%40gmail.com > _______________________________________________ Web-SIG mailing list [email protected] Web SIG: http://www.python.org/sigs/web-sig Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/web-sig/archive%40mail-archive.com
