IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Json] JSON: remove gap between Ecma-404 and IETF draft

"Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <jhildebr@cisco.com> Wed, 13 November 2013 20:43 UTC

Return-Path: <jhildebr@cisco.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 D433311E81A9; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 12:43:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.309
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.309 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.290, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 N14IdNBaEYch; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 12:43:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F16EB21F9FAB; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 12:43:16 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=967; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1384375397; x=1385584997; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=m7RcUrJ3TzyCqU4yMezO7Pin+N9vMDKDrNrS54vfpOk=; b=hO+1mxL0htDPg72g2re5J2UqAExUNSX+DKdRzDVtb+GRmELsjLlXmQVk oOkfTIIZJP/k0AU4A6wEfCA3i2ROGCAqKEETk9Tr1qomu6OceNZs5Ifkh bP9iufCUFjtjTEoYrPWWZw1L1Tpz2ZoOPTGUDONb2k0RZ49sYDfzSKLER E=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgEFAO3jg1KtJV2c/2dsb2JhbABZgweBC78sgSgWdIIseRIBCA5qJQIEDgWIAcA2j18HhDEDmBCSC4Mogio
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,695,1378857600"; d="scan'208";a="284430418"
Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 Nov 2013 20:43:11 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x03.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x03.cisco.com [173.37.183.77]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rADKhBqU016575 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 13 Nov 2013 20:43:11 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com ([169.254.15.47]) by xhc-rcd-x03.cisco.com ([173.37.183.77]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 14:43:11 -0600
From: "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <jhildebr@cisco.com>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
Thread-Topic: [Json] JSON: remove gap between Ecma-404 and IETF draft
Thread-Index: AQHO37wfJCh2AJRFT02Gmc0EpJu9eJojjGwAgAB3owD//42eAA==
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 20:43:10 +0000
Message-ID: <CEA9315C.2CD5F%jhildebr@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <97CAF0BE-A67D-45AC-9004-D659808889B7@tzi.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.8.130913
x-originating-ip: [10.129.24.62]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-ID: <A776C1FC065FF14480CB36CD07E03EA7@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, JSON WG <json@ietf.org>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>, es-discuss <es-discuss@mozilla.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] JSON: remove gap between Ecma-404 and IETF draft
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, 13 Nov 2013 20:43:23 -0000

On 11/13/13 1:32 PM, "Carsten Bormann" <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:

>On 13 Nov 2013, at 12:24, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) <jhildebr@cisco.com>
>wrote:
>
>> changing the ABNF:
>> 
>> JSON-text = value
>
>(would need to add the whitespace ‹ that is not visible in the ECMA 404
>racetracks because they use an implicit whitespace rule.)

Good catch.

>There has been a long discussion in the WG about this potential change, I
>don¹t want to repeat it here.
>It may be worthwhile to dig up pointers to how that resulted in not
>making the change, for observers outside the WG.

I would argue that we didn't have adequate representation from TC39 in
that discussion, and that their getting involved is as good a reason as
any to double-check that we've still got the same consensus.  I know that
I for one decided to stop pushing for this when it looked like there were
a few more participants that wanted the status quo.

-- 
Joe Hildebrand

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email