Re: [Json] Update to proposed charter to cover listing changes

Paul Hoffman <> Sat, 16 March 2013 16:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F5F221F89BA for <>; Sat, 16 Mar 2013 09:43:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id o9cDH4zM+NDi for <>; Sat, 16 Mar 2013 09:43:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5D6221F89A5 for <>; Sat, 16 Mar 2013 09:43:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r2GGhL7w093464 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sat, 16 Mar 2013 09:43:22 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\))
From: Paul Hoffman <>
In-Reply-To: <343B12E966B7596EC5808648@cyrus.local>
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2013 09:43:21 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <343B12E966B7596EC5808648@cyrus.local>
To: Cyrus Daboo <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503)
Subject: Re: [Json] Update to proposed charter to cover listing changes
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion related to JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\)." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2013 16:43:32 -0000

On Mar 15, 2013, at 7:05 AM, Cyrus Daboo <> wrote:

> Hi Paul,
> --On March 14, 2013 12:03:25 PM -0400 Paul Hoffman <> wrote:
>> It is acknowledged that there are differences between RFC 4627 and the
>> ECMAScript specification in the rules for parsing JSON. Any changes that
>> break compatibility with existing implementations of either RFC 4627 or
>> the ECMAScript specification will need to have very strong justification
>> and broad support. All differences between RFC 4627 or the current
>> ECMAScript specification will be documented in the new RFC. This
>> documentation will include both the WG consensus for the rationale of the
>> changes and the expected impact of the changes.
>> Does anyone have a problem with this change?
> This mentions "current ECMAScript specification", yet there was also talk about the "in-progress" v6 ECMAScript spec. Do we have a timeline for when v6 work will be complete? It seems like we would want to base or diffs on that if it is available in a timely fashion.

Yes, I would assume that we would want to have 4627bis detail diffs from v6, even if we have to wait "a reasonable amount of time" for it. If it looks like v6 is going to take more time than that, the WG can decide to make the diffs against v5.1.

--Paul Hoffman