Re: [Json] Proposed document set from this WG

[Bjoern Hoehrmann <[e-mail]>]

* R S wrote:
>My suggestion is for the WG to target this use case only, and to treat
>the JSON processing rules in ECMAScript 5, Section 15.12 (The JSON
>Object) as the baseline for rules regarding encoding and decoding,
>rather than RFC4627.

The ecmascript specification defines a grammar for JSON to explain the
behavior of JSON.stringify and JSON.parse and notes that the on-the-wire
JSON format is defined in RFC 4627. The only difference between the two
grammars is that ecmascript allows values like `null` at the top level,
while RFC 4627 is more restrictive.

The Working Group might decide to remove this restriction in RFC4627bis,
but I see no reason to take the ecmascript specification as a baseline.
Also note that since the ecmascript specification does not define an on-
the-wire format, it does not address encoding and decoding issues like
handling character encodings at all, only RFC 4627 addresses those.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[e-mail] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: [phone] · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/