[geocar]

> JSON as a standalone language requires only the information written on that page.

    JSON.parse("{\"a\":9999999999999999.0}")

Either no browsers implement JSON as written on that page, or you need to read ECMAScript-262 to understand what is going on.

[MrJohz]

Well yes, if you're writing a JSON parser in a language based on ECMAScript-262, then you will need to understand ECMAScript-262 as well as the specification for the language you're working with. The same would also apply if you were writing an XML parser in a language based on ECMAScript-262.

If you write a JSON parser in Python, say, then you will need to understand how Python works instead.

In other words, I think you are confusing "json, the specified format" and "the JSON.parse function as specified by ECMAScript-262". These are two different things.

[geocar]

> The same would also apply if you were writing an XML parser in a language based on ECMAScript-262.

Thankfully XML specifies what a number is and anything that gets this wrong is not implementing XML. Very simple. No wonder I have less problems with people who implement XML.

> In other words, I think you are confusing "json, the specified format" and "the JSON.parse function as specified by ECMAScript-262". These are two different things.

I'm glad you noticed that after it was pointed out to you.

The implications of JSON.parse() not being an implementation of JSON are serious though: If none of the browser vendors can get two pages right, what hope does anyone else have?

I do prefer to think of them as the same thing, and JSON as more complicated than two pages, because this is a real thing I have to contend with: the number of developers who do not seem to understand JSON is much much more complicated than they think.

[MrJohz]

XML does not specify what a number is, I think you might be misinformed there. Some XML-related standards define representations for numbers on top what the basic XML spec defines, but that's true of JSON as well (e.g. JSON Schema).

If we go with the XML Schema definition of a number (say an integer), then even then we are at the mercy of different implementations. An integer according to the specification can be of arbitrary size, and implementations need to decide themselves which integers they support and how. The specification is a bit stricter than JSON's here and at least specifies a minimum precision that must be supported, and that implementations should clearly document the maximum precisions that they support, but this puts us back in the same place we were before, where to understand how to parse XML, I need to understand both the XML spec (and any additional specs I'm using to validate my XML), plus the specific implementation in the parser.

(And again, to clarify, this is the XML Schema specification we're talking about here — if I were to just use an XML-compliant parser with no extensions to handle XSD structures, then the interpretation of a particular block of text into "number" would be entirely implementation-specific.)

I completely agree with you that there are plenty of complicated edge cases when parsing both JSON and XML. That's a statement so true, it's hardly worth discussion! But those edge cases typically crop up — for both formats — in the places where the specification hits the road and gets implemented. And there, implementations can vary plenty. You need to understand the library you're using, the language, and the specification if you want to get things right. And that is true whether you're using JSON, XML, or something else entirely.