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

(I can't downvote direct replies, so it wasn't me.) I was not suggesting that you incorporate it. I was suggesting modifying your marketing copy to incorporate the fact that it will not be a superset anymore. Superset is a word we should guard and not let it become "sort of superset-ish, maybe, mostly", but should mean superset. If you don't have every feature, you should not say it's a superset. Since not only is there nothing wrong with feature elimination, but when done well is a downright good thing, it's not like this is some sort of major problem for the marketing or something; just say you used some taste in what you brought over.

And again let me emphasize, since you seem to be saying it again in some other replies, that "{mark} is a superset of JSON", if you mean that syntactically (as opposed to features wise), MUST mean that every valid JSON document will produce a valid {mark} parse. Nothing less than that qualifies it as a superset. Given that you reserve numeric keys I don't think that is the case; whether the grammar is a superset is harder to determine so I haven't tried. That would be something best served by taking a very complete JSON parser test suite from someone and validating that all their corner cases that are supposed to parse in JSON, parse in {mark}. Based on my own experience in the world of parsing, the odds of you passing that first try are very low; if you manage, major kudos to you as that would be a very difficult test. (Though I would imagine that since the grammar largely came from JSON a lot of the surprises would be the ways in which your parser turns out to deviate from the grammar rather than grammar errors.)



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

Search: