IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Json] ECMA-262 normative?

Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> Wed, 02 October 2013 16:53 UTC

Return-Path: <tbray@textuality.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 BF5BA21F93E1 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 09:53:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.976
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 oQvkXt-eF-au for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 09:53:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lb0-f179.google.com (mail-lb0-f179.google.com [209.85.217.179]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EAA721F9C38 for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 09:52:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lb0-f179.google.com with SMTP id x18so977730lbi.24 for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 02 Oct 2013 09:52:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=CyvQG8AtYrRKWRGSg7MMwqY+9/P+WyCYWnjmhCjd0sI=; b=InSZU7jZJ3BRmNzahTopPyAz+U4QDZ++jrcgnhYkcXxKBqehkuRi1coYAFetG/qpbQ G2zLmb65rveQ2plNoQsfS1EDhevIILs49bgtIg4XS05Ei1B9SoXWrbj7EDtYTHi7k0ZX IZ+H7MKDhLsrRea8O40/S1H2kZfjIljzypLjZb3Qem+LJ5P2fE3kASVhNscsX3kh5ERk XPCJrWhAFBdfZPWAJiWFZ3vAMon9SPa9Oq/LAMx/zZOgfS/NcqVOFxDSem/kdcPK6F5x vyol2toDlRleIY1OuW6FNRFa66oJwxR8VDVvM+OWRCqfHm7EgAh/XoL6SpORc16zFrPu 6SDA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm1g7+zvVkoGdilawmkwphgnAl+vv82XVnwDvbzEaNxGHs9IIdJRv9RBhvWUw4STEKeWjvK
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.168.3 with SMTP id zs3mr3018453lbb.2.1380732749033; Wed, 02 Oct 2013 09:52:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.114.10.200 with HTTP; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 09:52:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [172.19.29.195]
In-Reply-To: <CAChr6SxFVk4pGL_2uzOo-nP-k3rb12-Gx+LPyyuuRFuMbtwv7A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BF7E36B9C495A6468E8EC573603ED9411EF1BB0B@xmb-aln-x11.cisco.com> <CAChr6SyznBktmOLpT-EiZ5Nm_0jZ16M0tOo4aZ_jhSDb=HHDqg@mail.gmail.com> <23C96FBA-3419-4C97-A075-462F7443013A@vpnc.org> <52448254.5090209@cisco.com> <F2D7291B-5E70-459C-885D-B48C5342A8F5@tzi.org> <CAChr6SxFVk4pGL_2uzOo-nP-k3rb12-Gx+LPyyuuRFuMbtwv7A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 09:52:28 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHBU6itQZwz07rdbaKAAWJS-UMUn2wra=OZKaNL72ADeO0pwuw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
To: R S <sayrer@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c33fe6093de204e7c4e5cf"
Cc: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>, JSON WG <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] ECMA-262 normative?
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: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 16:53:40 -0000

On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 6:55 PM, R S <sayrer@gmail.com> wrote:

> It is true for RFC 4627. That makes claims that JSON has nothing to do
> with ECMAScript rather baseless, at least if one plays the part of spec
> nerd.
>
> I think we should have a rationale for changing this, since we're not
> supposed be changing things without being very careful.
>

Quoting from earlier in the thread:

On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 7:47 AM, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:

> Normative references specify documents that must be read to understand or
implement the technology in the new RFC, or whose technology must be
present for the technology in the new RFC to work.

Sounds like a good rationale to me.



>
> - Rob
>
> _______________________________________________
> json mailing list
> json@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>
>

v2.37.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status