Re: [Json] Two Documents

Douglas Crockford <> Thu, 13 June 2013 16:12 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE1D821F9A1C for <>; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 09:12:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.524
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.524 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5QpR7YjDpO7j for <>; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 09:12:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1158721F994F for <>; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 09:12:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) by (node=mrus0) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MGTYO-1UZwij2o1w-00DHxO; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 12:12:08 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 09:11:47 -0700
From: Douglas Crockford <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: John Cowan <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:q9gQNVukztCqEixs4PW3O8HewRg4QQvpZwKQBzpFDMQ k1LRssluhBQcjz7HWaFOBsMyMVyX0r8v+e2MX1sf7JXAOLlhJN uKZz7ahmHBpqGk8OaAvJX+LcxB36yqWlOe/ZiX71fpoEpRh2lr X7DLD4oif8mqaSzklkb+RUfOLZePVoTdlex06ySojqbbsBK8CO Q7ZNzb0RB/DIiRNlJnGASMf05YblPIKPbiqcEDxUztFHLOHpg0 xLPHzT8TeRUDHRp3VCTY2efN70cX8QdLUfHVOcM29VHTYS23qj cqfONveaUtf5yY4ESq70035vbZHhs82KoU68GtUeXLouoBKuHS AgB+nnAgiTBfpA8wHCUikT55plrdjqGVeCF7XvuoT
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [Json] Two Documents
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 16:12:16 -0000

On 6/13/2013 8:57 AM, John Cowan wrote:
> Douglas Crockford scripsit:
>> The confusion and controversy around this work is due to a mistake
>> that I made in RFC 4627. The purpose of the RFC, which is clearly
>> indicated in the title, was to establish a MIME type. I also gave
>> a description of the JSON Data Interchange Format. My mistake was
>> in conflating the two, putting details about the MIME type into the
>> description of the format. My intention was to add clarity. That
>> obviously was not the result.
> Indeed.
>> So we should be working on at least two documents, which is something
>> we have discussed earlier. The first is The JSON Data Interchange
>> Format, which is a simple grammar. The second is a best practices
>> document, which recommends specific conventions of usage.
> Fine, but the definition of the application/json media type can't be
> exiled to a BCP.  It either has to be in a separate standards-track RFC,
> or needs to be in the same RFC as the definition of JSON format but in a
> different section of it.  The latter strikes me as more sensible.
I think it will be better for ECMA that application/json be in a 
separate document.
ECMA does not appear to be concerned with the maintenance of MIME types.