JSON parser grammar

Douglas Crockford douglas at crockford.com
Wed Jun 3 16:43:28 PDT 2009

Waldemar Horwat wrote:
> Douglas Crockford wrote:
>> Waldemar Horwat wrote:
>>>> 2) Do we want to permit conforming implementations to extend the 
>>>> JSON grammar that they recognize?  This probably could be done by 
>>>> extending the syntax error extension allowance in section 16 to 
>>>> include the JSON grammar.  If we allow this then most of the 
>>>> observed variation for the current emerging implementation that we 
>>>> have been talking about would probably be acceptable extensions.
>> JSON is done. JSON will not be revised. Someday it might be replaced and
>> that replacement will have a different name and likely a different model.
>> Chapter 16 should not give a license to fiddle with the JSON grammar.
> OK, so we need not discuss any new numeric types any further in 
> committee because it would be impossible to round-trip them through 
> JSON.  Do we have agreement on that?

Not necessarily. What we can agree on is that new numeric types cannot impose 
changes on the JSON syntax.

More information about the es-discuss mailing list