IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

R S <sayrer@gmail.com> Wed, 02 October 2013 19:42 UTC

Return-Path: <sayrer@gmail.com>
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 7CACE21F9F01 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 12:42:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 7HLj7REpRiVv for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 12:42:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qe0-x234.google.com (mail-qe0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c02::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 387F221F9FBA for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 12:32:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qe0-f52.google.com with SMTP id i11so942250qej.39 for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 02 Oct 2013 12:32:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=uETvcleG9h/E9hFwfWC7IQYxS+9UwsbsnGzavAxNsqs=; b=dI3zq8m5UouDiZ46RW5TCmGrGMDZwXFmVeWVxAIOH3otyD3u8caXNz8LqD63XsTLZ3 gDhOXTlLQHDqpEZSA/V7FZPuNFBWEq6RyvdZZ3AJsTFFxUBjQNur0r+zRZLipOKiEr0M JrcciaoCwi3ZsEMwkJy0dIBK1bQbGtnPFcoridcoWJJuRBmfUu4H/MeuOUOt3WjmMudc yhaY/syANbtdCqn2UcFU8CKohTY2aecBKQ/zcwOO8hlh//kN5UiTqn4OTWybrBwIicE/ yHZmLBYy8AEYNgbSNk9xe2sKUAaD3afn6AZusOq4MvRwcWwjXm3upeApg8/Iheoe/xW7 lXDw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.224.167.18 with SMTP id o18mr5664202qay.87.1380742378628; Wed, 02 Oct 2013 12:32:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.140.86.147 with HTTP; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 12:32:58 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <421F79DF-0B88-4E24-8666-189228E6E189@vpnc.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>
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 12:32:58 -0700
Message-ID: <CAChr6SyEBkhbB5Mrr1AAqevzouvSa7Cx+qtvBx=HPCdgAiQjOg@mail.gmail.com>
From: R S <sayrer@gmail.com>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e01294f5a01322304e7c72372"
Cc: 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 19:42:28 -0000

I think we pretty clearly need to refer to 5.1 to do the comparison. We can
leave the old reference for the "derived from" text if we want.

- Rob


On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:50 AM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote:

> On Oct 2, 2013, at 10:59 AM, R S <sayrer@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > ECMAScript 5.1 contains JSON
>
> Are you saying we should change the reference that was in RFC 4627? Or
> that we should leave the old reference but create a section on differences
> that points to 5.1?
>
> --Paul Hoffman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email