Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
>
> The second is perhaps equivalent to the XML
> <foo>
> <value>bar</value>
> <value>spam</value>
> </foo>
>
So if you can write
<foo>
<value>bar</value>
<value>spam</value>
</foo>
in XML, why not also allow
<foo value="bar" value="spam"/>
?
It is more succinct, which seems to be one of the JSON selling points.
> or even if you use XSD schema with the appropriate type
> <foo>bar spam</foo>
>
but this requires a schema, which is another of JSON's selling points:
It doesn't.
----
Stephen D Green
On 9 December 2010 15:12, David Lee <dlee@c...> wrote:
>
>
> =============='
>> { "foo" : "bar" , "foo" : "spam" }
>>
>> Is legal JSON ?
>
> But the array
>
> { "foo": ["bar", "spam"] }
>
> amounts to the same thing doesn't it?
> ----
> Stephen D Green
> ============================
>
> Not in my mind. They end up as different internal objects.
>
> The first is an object with 2 named fields, the second is an object with one
> named field which is an array of 2 unnamed strings.
> Completely different data, both in syntax and in the internal JavaScript
> object form.
> You would access them differently. They are not equivalent.
>
> The second is perhaps equivalent to the XML
> <foo>
> <value>bar</value>
> <value>spam</value>
> </foo>
>
> or even if you use XSD schema with the appropriate type
> <foo>bar spam</foo>
>
>
>
>
>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
