Both are valid javascript, but only one is valid json.
However many json parsers are leaniant in what they accept.
var moo = { foo: "bar" } // this is javascript, not json.
JSON.stringify(moo) should give '{ "foo": "bar" }' // this is json.
So if you are passing json to something, it needs to be
aldana wrote:
> i often see two different json styles to have names:
>
> { key : "value" }
>
> vs
>
> { "key" :"value" }
>
>
> looking at official sites only option 2 is correct syntax, never the less
> most of the tools do also handle option 1 and don't moan about the syntax.
>
> what you say, do
This isn't the same thing. Consider the following code:
var json1 = { jack: "jack jackson" };
var json2 = '{ sara: "sara jones" }';
In this case, json1 becomes a javascript object in memory. json2 is a
string that just so happens to look like a javascript object.
In the first case, this is
Actually, quoting is optional *EXCEPT* if member name contains spaces
or is a language-specific reserved word.
Try to jslint this fragment:
var JSONTest = {
"jack johnson": "john jackson",
"alice": "bob",
"var": "error"
};
Unquoting alice makes no difference; doing the same for jack
OK,
to be standard I will go for the ticked way. Never the less I think it is
unfortunate that JSON forces the name to be ticked. The JSON document gets
less readable and more annoying to write.
Shawn Grover wrote:
>
>
> This all depends on where you are generating and using the json string
This all depends on where you are generating and using the json string.
Doing
{ key : "value" }
and then using that code immediately on the same page, typically works fine.
However, if you ever need to pass your json string to/from a server,
you'll find that this "shortcut" fails quite ofte
seriously i am not sure
but sometimes i just hate to see something like
var data = {.something};
var config = {
data : data
};
so when this happens I do
var config = {
'data' : data
};
just to be clear
7 matches
Mail list logo
