Re: [Json] Proposal: the minimal edit

[Bjoern Hoehrmann <[e-mail]>]

* Paul Hoffman wrote:
>On Jun 24, 2013, at 7:33 PM, John Cowan <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Actually, I wouldn't say anything at this stage, now that I think
>> about it.  The time to write a list giving the differences between
>> ECMA-JSON and RFC-JSON is after we know what it is that RFC-JSON says.
>> Right now we don't.
>
>I apologize if I didn't make it clear, but the proposal that I made 
>earlier says *exactly* what is in what you call RFC-JSON. It is the 
>current draft, with only the changes that I listed. This is what Robert 
>proposed at the beginning of this thread.

The Working Group has yet to decide whether it wants to, say, allow
strings at the top level of application/json resources, so proposals
for text detailing differences between "ECMA-JSON" and what this WG
is going to define are premature. People who think strings should be
allowed at the top level would not speak up in this thread, so the
thread is not useful for finding consensus around substantive issues.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[e-mail] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: [phone] · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/