Re: [Json] Consensus on JSON-text (WAS: JSON: remove gap between Ecma-404 and IETF draft)

[Alex Russell <[e-mail]>]

Will you also be citing ECMA-404 normatively to avoid this sort of
divergence in the future?


On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Tim Bray <[e-mail]> wrote:

> To do this, I think the draft requires these changes:
>
> - Remove the trailing section of section 1.2, starting with “ECMAscript
> 5.1 enumerates...” [because the difference no longer exists]
>
> - In section 2:
>
> -- remove “A JSON text is a serialized object or array.”
>
> -- Insert: “A JSON text is a serialized value.  Note that certain previous
> specifications of JSON constrained a JSON text to be an object or an array.
>  Implementations which generate only objects or arrays where a JSON text is
> called for will be interoperable in the sense that all implementations will
> accept these as conforming JSON texts.”
>
> -- Change the JSON-text production to read:
>
> JSON-text  = value
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 10:21 AM, Matt Miller (mamille2) <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> There appears to be consensus to change JSON-text to allow for any JSON
>> value -- not just object / array -- while noting that object or array as
>> the top-level is the most interoperable.
>>
>> We will ask the Document Editor to make this change to
>> draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis.
>>
>>
>> - Paul Hoffman and Matt Miller
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> json mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>>
>>
>