IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Json] Differences between RFC 4627 or the current ECMAScript specification

Tony Hansen <tony@att.com> Fri, 27 September 2013 15:35 UTC

Return-Path: <tony@att.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 A1C9E11E8167 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 08:35:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.494
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.494 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.104, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 F6uYAYqf+bLe for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 08:34:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nbfkord-smmo07.seg.att.com (nbfkord-smmo07.seg.att.com [209.65.160.93]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3895221F9E7C for <json@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 08:34:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from unknown [144.160.229.23] (EHLO alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com) by nbfkord-smmo07.seg.att.com(mxl_mta-6.15.0-1) over TLS secured channel with ESMTP id 295a5425.0.2742584.00-225.7412169.nbfkord-smmo07.seg.att.com (envelope-from <tony@att.com>); Fri, 27 Sep 2013 15:34:43 +0000 (UTC)
X-MXL-Hash: 5245a5935f4517ea-308550139fe5a64258e98a025ec6f22c2ce91692
Received: from enaf.aldc.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r8RFYges016957 for <json@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 11:34:42 -0400
Received: from alpi131.aldc.att.com (alpi131.aldc.att.com [130.8.218.69]) by alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r8RFYT69016738 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <json@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 11:34:38 -0400
Received: from alpi153.aldc.att.com (alpi153.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by alpi131.aldc.att.com (RSA Interceptor) for <json@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 15:34:13 GMT
Received: from aldc.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpi153.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r8RFYDIY032331 for <json@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 11:34:13 -0400
Received: from mailgw1.maillennium.att.com (maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by alpi153.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r8RFY8Md032177 for <json@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 11:34:08 -0400
Received: from [135.70.51.8] (vpn-135-70-51-8.vpn.west.att.com[135.70.51.8]) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with ESMTP id <20130927153407gw1004nhphe> (Authid: tony); Fri, 27 Sep 2013 15:34:08 +0000
X-Originating-IP: [135.70.51.8]
Message-ID: <5245A56D.4080205@att.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 11:34:05 -0400
From: Tony Hansen <tony@att.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: R S <sayrer@gmail.com>
References: <BF7E36B9C495A6468E8EC573603ED9411EF1BB0B@xmb-aln-x11.cisco.com> <CAChr6SyznBktmOLpT-EiZ5Nm_0jZ16M0tOo4aZ_jhSDb=HHDqg@mail.gmail.com> <23C96FBA-3419-4C97-A075-462F7443013A@vpnc.org> <CAChr6SxCpvGaZSGUDs+6vR4A5xv3NfzpRSkwsE_7c8ep+EX=YA@mail.gmail.com> <0FA0EFFF-2109-4D78-8723-2ECD990C0F82@vpnc.org> <CAChr6SwxgG=P2CYSfHkviG8+2vz6yK1fZQNMCvyWXrM1NgzLZQ@mail.gmail.com> <7058DBBD-9DCE-4A5C-B11D-5FC41A839407@vpnc.org> <CAChr6SwR+04Dcwy=WSf-zVgQ_Nwj_Ke5_dppuqk=CLz8BmdMiA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAChr6SwR+04Dcwy=WSf-zVgQ_Nwj_Ke5_dppuqk=CLz8BmdMiA@mail.gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------020608050404080506030400"
X-RSA-Inspected: yes
X-RSA-Classifications: public
X-Spam: [F=0.2000000000; CM=0.500; S=0.200(2010122901)]
X-MAIL-FROM: <tony@att.com>
X-SOURCE-IP: [144.160.229.23]
X-AnalysisOut: [v=2.0 cv=Rv1y2laK c=1 sm=0 a=VXHOiMMwGAwA+y4G3/O+aw==:17 a]
X-AnalysisOut: [=W6gWnrSLzfwA:10 a=sCfsyOEanakA:10 a=CiJi1AohYQ8A:10 a=ofM]
X-AnalysisOut: [gfj31e3cA:10 a=BLceEmwcHowA:10 a=zQP7CpKOAAAA:8 a=vx_-YKXh]
X-AnalysisOut: [WkMA:10 a=m9rGlshOAAAA:8 a=2AwhE-fXiuCx13cl9bYA:9 a=wPNLvf]
X-AnalysisOut: [GTeEIA:10 a=3tVY_Mm33XkA:10 a=pGLkceISAAAA:8 a=y4X5NDBnLSa]
X-AnalysisOut: [4pq0av7sA:9 a=_W_S_7VecoQA:10 a=tXsnliwV7b4A:10 a=AGMeX00E]
X-AnalysisOut: [npwQDAqR:21]
Cc: JSON WG <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] Differences between RFC 4627 or the current ECMAScript specification
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: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 15:35:02 -0000

On 9/26/2013 9:29 PM, R S wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 6:18 PM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org
> <mailto:paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>> wrote:
> ...
>
>
>     > Again, we won't be citing a future version with hypothetical
>     changes.
>     >
>     > > But you seem keen on us having such a section. Please provide
>     the full wording for what you
>     > > think would be valuable to include.
>     >
>     > I already have--feel free to reuse it.
>
>     It was:
>
>
> No.
>  
>
>
>     The ECMAScript specification allows primitives at the root level,
>     specifies exactly how to interpret numbers, and can handle "bit
>     sequences which cannot encode Unicode characters" just fine.
>
>     Do others here agree with all three parts? Or is there different
>     suggested wording?
>
>
> That text is not what I was referring to.

Sometimes things bear repeating. Would you please provide again the
exact text you were referring to so that we can discuss the correct
text? Thank you.

>  
>
>
>     Also: You did not include the second bullet from ECMAScript 5.1,
>     Section 15.12. Is there a reason for that?
>
>
> That bullet point is misleadingly worded. I can tell you this because
> I wrote a widely-used JSON implementation for RFC4267 that had to be
> adjusted for ECMAScript 5. The two biggest changes were to ban
> trailing commas in objects and accept primitive values at the root.

RFC 4627 does not allow trailing commas in objects. Nor does 4627-bis. I
don't see a difference there from ECMAScript's definition.

    Tony Hansen

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email