IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Json] Differences between RFC 4627 or the current ECMAScript specification

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Wed, 02 October 2013 20:50 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF93721F96ED for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 13:50:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vr20mdNyOmQU for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 13:50:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4431321F92B5 for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 13:49:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de
Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r92KnkR0010981; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 22:49:46 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [192.168.217.105] (p54894EBD.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.137.78.189]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6CB9665A; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 22:49:46 +0200 (CEST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAHBU6ito+g2C-FkMC38kk3HQSgymAxNAyDof6O7TRvSHdNVsYg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 22:49:45 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E24EF4EF-7FB4-4D00-94AA-1666CB597A58@tzi.org>
References: <BF7E36B9C495A6468E8EC573603ED9411EF1BB0B@xmb-aln-x11.cisco.com> <CAChr6SyznBktmOLpT-EiZ5Nm_0jZ16M0tOo4aZ_jhSDb=HHDqg@mail.gmail.com> <23C96FBA-3419-4C97-A075-462F7443013A@vpnc.org> <CAHBU6is2WzCNCwa0PYMM1Hr3Lij0GxWkVtVUan9=JPbvv0YCZg@mail.gmail.com> <CAChr6Sw72kxm8qJiDu=XMnARCttQPc5GNRQaXz4Xw9y+6-3=Mg@mail.gmail.com> <421F79DF-0B88-4E24-8666-189228E6E189@vpnc.org> <CAChr6SyEBkhbB5Mrr1AAqevzouvSa7Cx+qtvBx=HPCdgAiQjOg@mail.gmail.com> <20131002204435.GG30371@mercury.ccil.org> <CAHBU6ito+g2C-FkMC38kk3HQSgymAxNAyDof6O7TRvSHdNVsYg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
Cc: R S <sayrer@gmail.com>, John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, JSON WG <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] Differences between RFC 4627 or the current ECMAScript specification
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" <json.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/json>, <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/json>
List-Post: <mailto:json@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json>, <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 20:50:15 -0000

On Oct 2, 2013, at 22:47, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> wrote:

> Does it matter in the slightest to anyone on the planet what it was derived from?

It matters to those who want to understand the confusion between JSON and JavaScript object notation.

Grüße, Carsten

v2.27.8 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status