2006/11/4, Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
(I couldn't work out what thread this was a continuation to -- the first
message below didn't have a "Re:" in the subject line, and I can't find
any other thread that used the word "hazard". So I don't know exactly
what this thread was about. However, I shall not let that stop me from
jumping in and giving my two cents...)
On Fri, 3 Nov 2006, Douglas Crockford wrote:
>
> This is a convenience issue. Having toJSONString as a builtin is a
> convenience, removing the need to load json.js.
Assuming the thread is about introducing a way to convert a JS object into
a JSON representation, then I would encourage you to contact the
ECMAScript committee. Adding features to _javascript_ is out of scope for
the WHATWG specs.
Well, I think adding features to _javascript_ is part of its own nature, we can add features using the prototype without consulting any comitee, thats powerfull and also could be a source imcopatibility between libraries, consider the prototype.js library, it really extend the language.
http://prototype.conio.net/dist/prototype-1.4.0.js
--
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
