Re: [Json] Radically changing 4627bis

The descriptions in ECMA 404 and 4627 and json.org and ECMA 262 and the
-bis draft are all isomorphic as respects JSON syntax.  Except for the ECMA
family doesn't impose the top-level array-or-object restriction.  Also 404
says nothing at all about dupes in objects and loses a few other bits &
pieces such as default encodings.

Thus there would be no benefit to a reader of -bis in making them go
anywhere else to learn the syntax because it’s the same everywhere.  So I
think the -bis draft helpfully covers the same syntax ground, while also
offering interoperability-problems advice.  I don’t see any benefit in
decomposing the -bis at this point.

On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 1:26 PM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote:

> <no hat>
>
> On Oct 8, 2013, at 5:38 PM, "Manger, James H" <
> james.h.manger@team.telstra.com> wrote:
>
> > But the publication of ECMA-404 means we should radically change 4627bis.
> > Lets do what ECMA-404 "Introduction" suggests other standards do:
> >
> >  It is expected that other standards will refer to this one, strictly
> >  adhering to the JSON text format, while imposing restrictions on various
> >  encoding details. Such standards may require specific behaviours. JSON
> >  itself specifies no behaviour.
> >
> > Lets reference ECMA-404 -- not repeating any of the syntax.
> > Define the media type.
> > Discuss the interop issues with surrogates, huge integers, decimal
> floats, duplicate names, comments, encodings.
> > Perhaps define terms such as "web-safe JSON" (for a subset of JSON) and
> "web-safe JSON parser" (for specific parser behaviour) that other specs
> using JSON can refer to.
> >
> > I guess this is close to Tim’s "Internet JSON" or "I-JSON" proposal.
> > It is time to drop the minimal 4627 update.
>
> A strong -1 on ripping out our syntax and pointing to ECMA-404. Our syntax
> matches their syntax, so there is not a conflict issue. ECMA-404 was
> supposed to be syntax-only, but they included semantics about Unicode
> (characters vs. code points) that were important enough to this WG to
> generate hundreds of messages on our mailing list. If we point to ECMA-404
> for the syntax only, and add in our semantics on interoperability, there
> will then be a conflict that will have a negative effect on developers who
> are trying to create interoperable implementations.
>
> --Paul Hoffman
> _______________________________________________
> json mailing list
> json@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>