JSON parser grammar

David-Sarah Hopwood david-sarah at jacaranda.org
Wed Jun 3 19:57:21 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?

Many ECMAScript values (including values that behave somewhat like
primitives and that have literal syntax, such as regexps) already
do not round-trip through JSON. So there is no reason why values of
new types must do so.

-- 
David-Sarah Hopwood  ⚥  http://davidsarah.livejournal.com



More information about the es5-discuss mailing list