Comments to the JSON related proposals

Kris Zyp kriszyp at
Mon Aug 20 07:57:06 PDT 2007

> question arises: How would ad-hoc transient properties be set or 
> initialized in any old object?
With classes being available, why not provide a pathway for developers to 
define transience correctly in proper OO manner that would be serialization 
method agnostic, rather than adding a blacklisted array parameter to 
toJSONString, which IMHO is very poor and shortsighted way of defining 
transient/temporary keys? You are right that it would not available for 
plain old objects, or perhaps it could be. Transience would be a property 
attribute, and could be set just like defining enumerability of properties, 
although I would hate to suggest another method on Object.prototype.

> Dropping a namespace qualifier is  bad because it will lead to local name 
> collisions (Murphy says). In  general, silently dropping names and types 
> that don't fit in JSON  seems like deadly silence, not the golden kind.
I thought that dropping namespace qualifier had already been decided on. Is 
this still in question? I certainly agree that dropping namespaces seems 
dangerous, and when I asked before it was suggested that there could just 
simply be multiple identical keys in a JSON serialization output. Seems a 
little odd to stringify to something that is not even coherent JSON.

More information about the Es4-discuss mailing list