[arch-d] draft-iab-protocol-maintenance / JSON feedback

[Rob Sayre <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I'm sympathetic to concerns raised in the document, but I think the JSON
example is not a very good one.

JSON was deliberately underspecified because it would work most of the
time* in languages where typical payloads could get by using an "eval()"
function, rather than requiring an implementation at all, JavaScript and
Python being the most common. RFC4627 was an after-the-fact production, the
problems were already there.

So, the JSON case is actually showing that loose specification can drive
adoption (like HTML etc). I do not think that's the point you intended to
make.

thanks,
Rob

* the problems mentioned in the draft are real, but rare and often not
obvious