Re: [Json] REMINDER - WGLC Ends 2013-10-11

Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> Sat, 12 October 2013 02:04 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 226F621E813E for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 19:04:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.853
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.853 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.123, 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 E-CZy2Nl-MVE for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 19:04:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vb0-f54.google.com (mail-vb0-f54.google.com [209.85.212.54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D3FF21F9E2B for <json@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 19:04:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vb0-f54.google.com with SMTP id q14so3414000vbe.27 for <json@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 19:04:10 -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=MwTOablUfqdBbd46VeVG9hvanB1Mb/U++zAYoYG8KWw=; b=ViVOHlpuN81G9vDwDFlT7JneWvEfdP/I30c1qxte7rG79QHJ3da7BJsH7wbBG769hJ Uss7AAFv2Utih46H88Csl2e3xFkDPvSuUvYfA5PLXLpjOMUVsolXPgtb6Bk7qpYudVCP cgg5qPVhug8nSEBQerTzOw7glAjMFueDSpRICeSHIShKepPhaAF4OkOCWqBZ4tOWZYS3 gRDN5XwhUC855IQ2XFpBhMKGSb/aqRoq0cH+WMncmq/HlSrIcs1a3QBbjOfnUGY9U6yy inCk5xP24dM0F1D83MO10gv9XDgR91R3QXVhTAhR6ryY60sJznXupe1YtM8ICRPR7U6R nhhw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkrbcjBY6bWYNx4g4NG+u4zMjfV1oCHs8isIU2d31GsnvThgdoqyPmascl2lA5LWhuv9oUP
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.52.69.204 with SMTP id g12mr19954638vdu.26.1381543450403; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 19:04:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.174.197 with HTTP; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 19:04:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [24.84.235.32]
In-Reply-To: <713h595olqghb5hq13r3dqh7ss05l3p5ps@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
References: <lkf1yx0p824ir3w7kxdttde9.1381533395741@email.android.com> <CAHBU6iuu=2w50FxUCW1bCwhdFdv62JFk24czUE9E05eLzFmKHQ@mail.gmail.com> <713h595olqghb5hq13r3dqh7ss05l3p5ps@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 19:04:10 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHBU6it1tdwuufM5nvUx7Aufq4wcR8BC+dN+tpffykOB_=yhHg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf307c9faa9a82ae04e881a634
Cc: JSON WG <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] REMINDER - WGLC Ends 2013-10-11
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: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 02:04:16 -0000

Once again, check out
https://www.tbray.org/tmp/draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-06.html#rfc.section.1.2-
it is perfectly clear that the syntax is the same in all specs, with
the
difference that the ECMA flavor has not required JSON texts to be arrays or
objects at the top level.  This difference has existed for a long time,
JSON has managed to prosper in the face of it, and there is no good reason
to do anything about it aside from noting its existence. -T


On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote:

> * Tim Bray wrote:
> >Have a look at the “Specifications of JSON” section.  I think it makes it
> >clear that there are multiple specifications of JSON, they are all in
> >perfect harmony as to the syntactic elements of the language, and thus it
> >would be counterproductive to suggest that the reader needs to go anywhere
> >else to make sure they have it right.
> >
> >This is one of the nice things about working with JSON, there is no
> >disagreement as to the syntax of the language.
>
> The W3C specification for XML 1.0 says you cannot put a string like `1`
> at the top level of a document, you have to wrap it inside an element.
>
> So, if ECMA published their own specification for XML 1.0 that says the
> string `1` is a well-formed XML 1.0 document, and the W3C specification
> keeps saying the opposite, would you really describe that as perfect
> harmony with no disagreement about what constitutes a well-formed XML
> 1.0 document? What would your XML 1.0 processor do when asked to parse
> the string `1` in this scenario?
>
> Under ECMA-404 the string `1` is "JSON text" but it is not "JSON text"
> under the definition in RFC 4627 or draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-06. How
> is that different from the scenario above? I can't imagine you saying
> "This is one of the nice things about working with XML, some parsers
> accept the string `1` correctly as well-formed XML document, while some
> other processors correctly treat it as non-conforming garbage" but that
> is the situation we have with JSON.
> --
> 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/
>