I'm guessing it may help bring JSON to use in the more restrictive companies that are scared of 'nonstandard' file formats. The kind that currently uses XML for everything.

the kind that correctly uses XML for everything.

Why do you believe that using XML is better than JSON in every case? Or am I misinterpreting your comment?

I took it as sarcasm. The "for everything" was the tell.

Poe's Law; it's impossible to tell. There are presumably some companies who think that using XML for everything is appropriate, so it stands to reason that there actually are people who believe that as well.

Do you know any of these?

More of a formality than anything else. Since JSON was already defined by Javascript, formalizing it doesn't really engrave the standard, it just gives it the recognition that its not just some whacky thing created by Dave.

"Dave" being recognised as generic name for any developer.

Out of interest, does anyone know the most common first name for a developer?

Alex

OK, could you ask Alex what the most common name for a developer is then?

I'd be interested to know if this has any impact on the "don't be evil" clause in the JSON license.

That's just a license for software available on json.org, so no impact at all.

Where is it on json.org? I can't seem to find it.

The current versions of json.js and json2.js do not have the "evil" license clause. See my other comment:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6534318

json.org/license

Thanks, I couldn't actually find a link to that page.