On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Adam Barth <aba...@webkit.org> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Pavel Feldman <pfeld...@chromium.org> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 9:34 AM, Adam Barth <aba...@webkit.org> wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Pavel Feldman <pfeld...@chromium.org> >>> wrote: >>> > On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 8:51 AM, Adam Barth <aba...@webkit.org> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Check out InspectorValue. It should be renamed to JSONValue, but it >>> >> should meet your needs. >>> > >>> > InspectorValue is not intended to be used as a full fledged JSON parser. >>> > It >>> > only covers subset of the standard that is sufficient for the inspector >>> > operation. The spec requires that you "Return the result of invoking the >>> > parse function of the JSON object defined in ECMAScript" and I wonder >>> > why >>> > you are willing to do otherwise. >>> >>> Which spec? Is that text in http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4627 ? >>> >> >> I was referring to >> the http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/raw-file/tip/Overview.html#json-response-entity-body mentioned >> in the bug this thread is about. > > Ah. That spec is likely wrong. I'll email the working group.
Actually, I take it back. You're right. We need to use the engine-specific JSON parsing implementation because we're returning these objects to the JavaScript engine. It's likely the correct way to handle this with custom bindings, sadly. Adam _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
