IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Json] Two Documents

R S <sayrer@gmail.com> Fri, 14 June 2013 01:42 UTC

Return-Path: <sayrer@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9C3D21F9B45 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 18:42:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id a4FeNnG1fM3Z for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 18:42:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qa0-x22e.google.com (mail-qa0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c00::22e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BC8B21F9B00 for <json@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 18:42:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qa0-f46.google.com with SMTP id ih17so1489212qab.19 for <json@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 18:42:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=t+2EPG5+pHCgClnH7vw2qr8GBUzVgE1sYXYJP5sgK2A=; b=M29yIgxNOoNWVYg4tnmCLfZA39LG/4phxc/c5Hsjxt6a+vQJIShWOuDoWkZBRsmDUS 8Ba5kHC7Mk70UGrJ1Bx9Oj7F44yUGBkqh/v96SB1Fu0OBvxwnrXkLd3JY75lF8mpRRBg Yw4nwPOxAVfrnBinagYmKeqQRl7LElyMAL1Uak7gPLw1B/liHZ3ZDF8QC9MsECg/s5O0 GB+lVJefuQqqqJifrurBy/jPQ76kOF6d8H++tXKd0uCTdt6Fm3uVFDjRKx/cQ7PHW76o AH9Gx7Zgh+zAqxcttVUv0ojrKZvueIlC4j7VrtwE3BpAsAw+H0NCQTqDscDCfmbzwR+x hodw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.229.141.69 with SMTP id l5mr63390qcu.23.1371174177703; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 18:42:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.224.130.67 with HTTP; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 18:42:57 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAO1wJ5SRb+NEP9yXrwzhUPOSJ6mPbkCfG_knnh0PJtZ=yGPC_g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <51B9EA49.2050604@crockford.com> <CAO1wJ5SRb+NEP9yXrwzhUPOSJ6mPbkCfG_knnh0PJtZ=yGPC_g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 18:42:57 -0700
Message-ID: <CAChr6Sy4bKY2pfZbAxdvnQbH4=nBRLUssb351YXVXEs=vbKoRg@mail.gmail.com>
From: R S <sayrer@gmail.com>
To: Jacob Davies <jacob@well.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="90e6ba10af85c9937804df135da6"
Cc: Douglas Crockford <douglas@crockford.com>, "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] Two Documents
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" <json.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/json>, <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/json>
List-Post: <mailto:json@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json>, <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 01:42:59 -0000

On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Jacob Davies <jacob@well.com> wrote:

> I think the current lucid, succinct text that describes a data model, a
> language, and a byte serialization is so useful because it comprehensively
> describes all three things. So I wouldn't break it up.
>

I also think it is useful. JSON is a wildly successful format, so that
leads me to believe that the current document got the level of encoding
precision just about right.

This dual-document proposal seems aimed at avoiding impractical character
encoding requirements. I am sympathetic to that. I would prefer two
documents over a single document with prescriptive and therefore incorrect
encoding directives.

- Rob

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email