> That sounds like a "no true scotsman" argument. I don't see how this is a "no ... | Hacker News

Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit

		mercurial on Oct 12, 2013 \| parent \| context \| favorite \| on: ECMA-404: The JSON Data Interchange Format [pdf] > That sounds like a "no true scotsman" argument. I don't see how this is a "no true scotsman". Maybe a non-true "no true scotsman"? > If comments were added to the spec then normal tools would support them just fine. Plain comments, sure. Comments with custom annotations in them, not so much. > Besides, JSON has already become a common format for config files. Config files that don't allow comments are truly a step backward. Maybe this wasn't such a good idea in the first place?

MichaelGG on Oct 12, 2013 [–]

How not? Comments with annotations would be ignored, just like a special annotation key. Either way, you'd end up with a parsed document that isn't what the original creator intended.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact