Re: [Json] Kicking Off JSONbis

[Tim Bray <[e-mail]>]

[I'll post a 7159bis with errata by end-of-day whether I get an answer on
the errata-wonkery or not.  Now, returning to the meat of the discussion.]

I have really major heartburn with introducing a Normative Reference to
ECMA404 in 7159bis.  Because language in standards documents should be used
carefully, and “Normative Reference” has a very specific meaning, and that
meaning clearly does not apply in this case.  However, since there is
apparently a feeling that there is some benefit to the community in
achieving “standards harmony”, let me propose three ways forward:

1. Include a normative reference to ECMA404, but accompany it with text
explaining that this reference is marked normative because it is considered
authoritative in the community of JavaScript language specifiers, not in
the normal sense of “normative”; there is no necessity to read it in order
too understand or implement RFC7159bis, nor does it specify any technology
which must be present in an implementation that is not also described in
7159bis.”

2. Do not include a normative reference, but expand the note about ECMA404
in Section 1.2 to emphasize that ECMA404 may be considered authoritative in
the community of JavaScript implementers.

3. Conclude that this effort has no observable benefit to the community
implementing JSON on the Internet and abandon the RFC7159bis project.

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 9:10 AM, Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> >>> Sure, but isn’t a consensus call on the substantive change to the spec
> in
> >>> order?
> >>
> >> That could be done by posting an I-D to make the proposal, and have
> >> the working group review it and comment on it.  Right now, there's
> >> just a "here's what we plan to do", and there've been a few comments
> >> about that.  Specific text to review might help, no?
> >
> > RFC 7159 has the following verified errata:
> >
> > * https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7159&eid=3915
> > * https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7159&eid=4264
> > * https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7159&eid=4336
> >
> > I suggest at the least an I-D be published that applies these.
>
> That works for me.
>
> As to the other, specific text proposed on the list will give people
> something to discuss.
>
> Barry
>



-- 
- Tim Bray (If you’d like to send me a private message, see
https://keybase.io/timbray)