On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 6:06 PM, Sanford Whiteman <
sa...@cypressintegrated.com> wrote:
>
> -- I do not feel that the acronym JSON has any clarifying nor edifying
> place in the RFC describing this syntax.
>
> Rather, I would suggest one of the following:
>
> · JavaScript-like [object|array] literal syntax
> · bare-bracket [object|array] literal syntax
> · short [object|array] literal syntax
> · compact [object|array] ...
> · quick [object|array] ...
> · colon-pair [object|array] ...
>
> I have actually been excited about the discussion of this feature area
> and anticipate my eventual +1 if "JSON" could be removed from the RFC.
> Even though the term doesn't affect the way the feature works, by
> upvoting the RFC one is approving of wording that may make it to the
> general public, and I think this would be bad for PHP.
> It might also be noted (h/t David Vega) that Ruby adopted a syntax
> similar to that proposed here and completely avoided using the term
> JSON in final documentation, as I hope will be done with PHP even if
> this RFC continues to use the term.
>
Bravo for ponting that out, your argument has cleared my mind a little while
trying to understand this side (I'm actually against the JSON
interoperability argument [because it does not make sense to me], but not
the syntax).
After reading this new RFC and pondering about the JSONy implications, the
multi-part conclusion that I reached is that:
a) JSON is actually being mentioned to advocate for the syntax with for the
sake of *familiarity*.
b) Interoperability is being confused with familiarity.
c) Actual interoperability of the syntax with JSON is just a happy
coincidence (same as with Ruby)
d) In no context this notation could function as JSON and PHP at the same
time, mainly because PHP requires tags
e) There is a strong resistance to change, I bet the detractors of this
short syntax (even with the ":") would change their opinion after using it,
just the way some of us used to hate the idea of namespaces with "\" and
after using it changed our opinion (specially with the autoloading standard
that actually reflects file structure, e.g. in Symfony2).
f) If JSON ceased to exist in this very moment, supporters of the syntax
would be still supporting it and perhaps detractors would accept it.
The effect of mentioning JSON, and implying direct compatibility with JSON
technologies and JSON itself is just adding FUD.
+1 to removing references to JSON from the RFC, because "[ ]", "{ }" and ":"
make enough sense by themselves.
Regards,
David Vega
