Is it just me, or does their sample request use invalid JSON? The keys should be in quotes, comments aren’t in spec (but commonly supported), and trailing commas are invalid as well (but commonly supported).
I understand this line of thinking, but unless they specify what “flavor” of JSON they accept, I think it’s safe to assume they only accept what’s in spec. What I find weird is that they immediately contradict the spec with their example by writing JavaScript. Should the content-type then be application/javascript? They can easily document the parameters outside the request body instead of adding comments.
Also, yes, I know I’m being pedantic, but if I’m applying for a job, it’s a two way application. They need to give me reason to trust that they’re worth working for. Making up rules along the way when referencing a commonly known spec doesn’t give me much confidence.
Is it just me, or does their sample request use invalid JSON? The keys should be in quotes, comments aren’t in spec (but commonly supported), and trailing commas are invalid as well (but commonly supported).
It’s only invalid if it generated errors.
But yeah, I typically play it safe and follow the standards. I do wish JSON5 would catch on though.
I understand this line of thinking, but unless they specify what “flavor” of JSON they accept, I think it’s safe to assume they only accept what’s in spec. What I find weird is that they immediately contradict the spec with their example by writing JavaScript. Should the
content-typethen beapplication/javascript? They can easily document the parameters outside the request body instead of adding comments.Also, yes, I know I’m being pedantic, but if I’m applying for a job, it’s a two way application. They need to give me reason to trust that they’re worth working for. Making up rules along the way when referencing a commonly known spec doesn’t give me much confidence.
That looks like a JavaScript object. It’s not incorrect sytax for a JavaScript object.