Re: [Json] Two Documents

[Douglas Crockford <[e-mail]>]

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.