JSON5 Data Interchange Format
json5.org
JSON5 Data Interchange Format
1–10 of 157 posts
Re: JSON5 Data Interchange Format
#2IIRC there is a JSON6 format which adds features and improvements on top of JSON5.
Re: JSON5 Data Interchange Format
#3IIRC there is a JSON6 format which adds features and improvements on top of JSON5.
HJSON [0] is also another format that tries to make it easier for humans to read / write json.
Re: JSON5 Data Interchange Format
#4Couple of gripes:
- Still no date type
- Why make it more loose? Like "Strings may be single quoted." doesn't bring any value.Re: JSON5 Data Interchange Format
#5> Strings may include character escapes
Wait, that wasn't possible before?
I like it, most of the additions seem more like filling gaps in the original version. And the lack of trailing commas & comments have always annoyed me a bit.
But as this is a library I'm guessing NPM doesn't support it for the package.json?
Re: JSON5 Data Interchange Format
#6Is there an official standard body behind this (and json 6 mentioned in another comment), or is it a kind of loose / informal standard left up to libraries to implement?
I mean comments and trailing commas will make JSON a bit more human friendly when used in e.g. configuration (package.json), but as a pure data exchange format it doesn't add much. Mind you, there's better data exchange formats than json, like XML (yes I said it) which can be transferred via a binary protocol (https://www.w3.org/TR/exi/) instead of the, when you think about it, awkward and inefficient data -> text format -> compression -> transfer -> decompress -> text format -> parse cycle of both 'traditional' XML and JSON both.
I wouldn't be averse to the idea of browser manufacturers or standards bodies to come up with a more efficient data transfer method that can be human-read with the right tooling like browser development tools, but which is fully compressed binary and efficient on the line. I feel like tools like GRPC are a bit too far out there.
Re: JSON5 Data Interchange Format
#7While I think this would make JSON more fun to edit by-hand, I don’t feel the breaking changes across the stack, and mixed adoption, are worth the benefits.
Re: JSON5 Data Interchange Format
#8Having comments is probably the functionality I wanted the most.
Re: JSON5 Data Interchange Format
#9Couple of gripes: - Still no date type - Why make it more loose? Like "Strings may be single quoted." doesn't bring any value.
What would a date type look like? An ISO-8601 string is probably as good as it'll get, else you end up with an object containing loads of additional information like timezones, offsets, etc. There's also https://json-schema.org/understanding-json-schema/reference/... for a formalized date format in JSON.
The looseness seems to be aimed at human authors who want to write JSON as if it were JS, so mainly package.json. But, json is not ideal for configuration for multiple reasons.
Re: JSON5 Data Interchange Format
#10Couple of gripes: - Still no date type - Why make it more loose? Like "Strings may be single quoted." doesn't bring any value.
I agree about the single quotes, but many use single quotes for strings in JS and so it's understandable to have this consistent.