Re: [Json] Another small charter change

Carsten Bormann <> Fri, 15 March 2013 14:18 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5D5421F8706 for <>; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 07:18:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.049
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.049 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.200, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gqn9sDcj3CsW for <>; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 07:18:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32BBA21F8745 for <>; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 07:18:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r2FEI7Bv022159; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 15:18:07 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 60D303BD1; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 15:18:06 +0100 (CET)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\))
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
From: Carsten Bormann <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 10:18:02 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
To: Paul Hoffman <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503)
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [Json] Another small charter change
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: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 14:18:18 -0000

On Mar 15, 2013, at 08:46, Paul Hoffman <> wrote:

> As Jim Schaad pointed out in the BoF, we need a small change to the third paragraph. I have removed "It is clear that at this point, as the IETF specification is the standard one" from the beginning of the third paragraph because some people consider the ECMAScript document to be the standard.


1) 4627 is not a "standard", indeed.
2) "It is clear that" is code for "I don't know how to substantiate my view that".

3) However, I'm not happy with allowing the impression as if JSON were a part of JavaScript.
   The whole point was that it is not.  JSON was *derived* from JavaScript, and some changes 
   were made.  Further evolution of JavaScript does not change JSON (ensuring this property
   *was* why the changes were made).  (The fact that the set of JavaScript implementations 
   of JSON is an important one to consider when making potentially compatibility-affecting
   fixes notwithstanding.)
As long as we agree that removing the text is not implicitly a retraction of the view that it is 4627 that defines JSON, I'm fine with the change.

Grüße, Carsten