Re: [Json] 2-step proposal 4627bis + I-JSON

+1
On Jul 3, 2013 5:00 PM, "Nico Williams" <nico@cryptonector.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 6:46 PM, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> wrote:
> > I look forward to hearing what path Pete suggests through the thicket.
> > Here’s one that I think is plausible:
> >
> > 1. Do a 4267bis along the lines of the minimal-work proposals. It
> describes
> > JSON as she are spoke (wildly successful), changes as little as we
> possibly
> > can, documents the areas of interoperability breakage (dupes, surrogates,
> > top-level primitives), whacks the  regex in the security section, uses
> > SHOULD in the manner that Pete suggested is perfectly kosher. Declare
> > victory!
> >
> > 2. Recharter in a way that will allow us to produce something like a
> > strawman I cooked up, I-JSON: https://www.tbray.org/tmp/i-json.html Produce
> > something like that. Second victory!
>
> A hearty +1.
>
> When I'm done with more pressing I-Ds (i.e., by Monday) I'll propose
> text for (1).
>
> Nico
> --
> _______________________________________________
> json mailing list
> json@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>