Re: [Json] Proposal: the minimal edit

No, John, Paul provided a completely worked through proposal encompassing a
small but nonzero set of changes, the largest being the vs-ECMA section. -T

On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 7:33 PM, John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> wrote:

> Paul Hoffman scripsit:
>
> > Given a section titled "Differences from the JSON Definition in
> > ECMAScript" that begins "The following lists the known major differences
> > between this document and the definition of JSON in Section 15.12 of
> > [ECMA]", what would you say about the perceived difference in the
> > code points that ECMAScript implementations can generate and consume
> > relative to RFC 4627?
>
> Actually, I wouldn't say anything at this stage, now that I think
> about it.  The time to write a list giving the differences between
> ECMA-JSON and RFC-JSON is after we know what it is that RFC-JSON says.
> Right now we don't.
>
> --
> John Cowan  cowan@ccil.org  http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
> Thor Heyerdahl recounts his attempt to prove Rudyard Kipling's theory
> that the mongoose first came to India on a raft from Polynesia.
>         --blurb for Rikki-Kon-Tiki-Tavi
> _______________________________________________
> json mailing list
> json@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>