Re: [Json] Minimal edit proposal, second round

[John Cowan <[e-mail]>]

Tim Bray scripsit:

> Yeah, but our charter clearly doesn’t let us fix JSON.  What we need is to
> do something like this, then re-charter to produce a doc that provides real
> guidance, so that, as someone in this thread pointed out, other Working
> Groups will have something to point to and won’t, as is currently happening
> in Jose, have to write explicit language forbidding dupes, etc, into their
> drafts.  So I’m in favor of doing this minimal point-out-the-problems work
> and moving on. -T

If we do that, we will have an ambiguous document on the standards track.
The problem with implementation guidance is that it isn't normative:
nobody can insist on compliance with it.  If there's really no choice
except to dissolve and recharter, or to pass this farce, +1 for dissolution.

-- 
Using RELAX NG compact syntax to        John Cowan <[e-mail]>
develop schemas is one of the simple    http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
pleasures in life....
        --Jeni Tennison                 <[e-mail]>