Re: [Json] Proposed document set from this WG

Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> Wed, 20 February 2013 17:09 UTC

Return-Path: <derhoermi@gmx.net>
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 1E56E21F8797 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 09:09:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.966
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.966 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.967, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_45=0.6]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OtOSoLOzRexO for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 09:09:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.21]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0EE521F8771 for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 09:09:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([10.1.76.29]) by mrigmx.server.lan (mrigmx002) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0LiFq9-1UdTGF08u3-00nMPP for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 18:09:44 +0100
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 20 Feb 2013 17:09:43 -0000
Received: from p5B231E9D.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO netb.Speedport_W_700V) [91.35.30.157] by mail.gmx.net (mp029) with SMTP; 20 Feb 2013 18:09:43 +0100
X-Authenticated: #723575
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18eahwBYmgeVrb0hYb0GQmOjPMlFbmUCrP1R+fKCn 1XahWc95nYF26k
From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
To: R S <sayrer@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 18:09:45 +0100
Message-ID: <j0u9i8hdtheholthajetkq3brm4bdrnl8v@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
References: <CAChr6SxNLJ8kqsMUjiMMhx9w-quUkqEbpPjMF5fF-02jyUNPrQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAChr6SxNLJ8kqsMUjiMMhx9w-quUkqEbpPjMF5fF-02jyUNPrQ@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 3.3/32.846
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Cc: json@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Json] Proposed document set from this WG
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion related to JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\)." <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, 20 Feb 2013 17:09:46 -0000

* 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:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/