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

ECMAScript 5.1 contains JSON:

http://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/5.1/#sec-15.12

http://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/5.1/#sec-A.8'

- Rob

On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> wrote:

> So, I (blush) confess to never having read ECMA-262, which is what 4627
> references.  I thought I’d have a glance; I'm assuming that what I want is:
> http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST-ARCH/ECMA-262,%203rd%20edition,%20December%201999.pdf
>
> It turns out to be nontrivial to isolate the diffs between it and 4627; to
> start with, 262 does not contain any instances of either "JSON" nor "object
> notation”.  I guess if you look at 11.1 and squint your eyes and ignore the
> “this”, Identifier, and (Expression) variants, what’s left over might be
> JSON more or less. Maybe.
>
> So, since the spec is >150 pages, and I’m a JavaScript journeyman at best,
> if there’s going to be a concise list of differences, someone who
> understands that spec is going to have to write it, with references into
> the spec.  I suggest that if we don’t get such a proposal, this is not a
> fatal flaw in RFC4627bis because actually nobody cares.  If someone is
> inclined to do the work, it would improve our charter conformance but I’m
> not sure it would really add much practical value to the spec.
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 11:36 AM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>wrote:
>
>> On Sep 26, 2013, at 10:31 AM, R S <sayrer@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Charter:
>> > >
>> > > All differences between RFC 4627 or the current ECMAScript
>> specification > will be documented in the new RFC.
>> >
>> > The ECMAScript specification allows primitives at the root level,
>> specifies exactly how to interpret numbers, and can handle " bit sequences
>> which cannot encode Unicode characters" just fine.
>>
>> <no hat>
>>
>> Based on what we have learned in the last six months, it might be better
>> for this RFC *not* to do what the charter says.
>>
>> - TC39 is actively revising ECMAScript and it is not clear whether the
>> -bis draft of their version will be out first.
>>
>> - Some of what ECMAscript says about JSON is intertwingled with the
>> definition of ECMAscript, such as "exactly how to interpret numbers"
>>
>> I'm no longer sure that a long-lasting RFC interpreting parts of another
>> SDO's spec is a good idea.
>>
>> --Paul Hoffman
>> _______________________________________________
>> json mailing list
>> json@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> json mailing list
> json@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>
>

On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> wrote:

> So, I (blush) confess to never having read ECMA-262, which is what 4627
> references.  I thought I’d have a glance; I'm assuming that what I want is:
> http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST-ARCH/ECMA-262,%203rd%20edition,%20December%201999.pdf
>
> It turns out to be nontrivial to isolate the diffs between it and 4627; to
> start with, 262 does not contain any instances of either "JSON" nor "object
> notation”.  I guess if you look at 11.1 and squint your eyes and ignore the
> “this”, Identifier, and (Expression) variants, what’s left over might be
> JSON more or less. Maybe.
>
> So, since the spec is >150 pages, and I’m a JavaScript journeyman at best,
> if there’s going to be a concise list of differences, someone who
> understands that spec is going to have to write it, with references into
> the spec.  I suggest that if we don’t get such a proposal, this is not a
> fatal flaw in RFC4627bis because actually nobody cares.  If someone is
> inclined to do the work, it would improve our charter conformance but I’m
> not sure it would really add much practical value to the spec.
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 11:36 AM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>wrote:
>
>> On Sep 26, 2013, at 10:31 AM, R S <sayrer@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Charter:
>> > >
>> > > All differences between RFC 4627 or the current ECMAScript
>> specification > will be documented in the new RFC.
>> >
>> > The ECMAScript specification allows primitives at the root level,
>> specifies exactly how to interpret numbers, and can handle " bit sequences
>> which cannot encode Unicode characters" just fine.
>>
>> <no hat>
>>
>> Based on what we have learned in the last six months, it might be better
>> for this RFC *not* to do what the charter says.
>>
>> - TC39 is actively revising ECMAScript and it is not clear whether the
>> -bis draft of their version will be out first.
>>
>> - Some of what ECMAscript says about JSON is intertwingled with the
>> definition of ECMAscript, such as "exactly how to interpret numbers"
>>
>> I'm no longer sure that a long-lasting RFC interpreting parts of another
>> SDO's spec is a good idea.
>>
>> --Paul Hoffman
>> _______________________________________________
>> json mailing list
>> json@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> json mailing list
> json@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>
>