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

R S <sayrer@gmail.com> Thu, 26 September 2013 23:23 UTC

Return-Path: <sayrer@gmail.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 0EBA121F9E02 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 16:23:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 zGlrWl3w6nvT for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 16:23:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qa0-x235.google.com (mail-qa0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c00::235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AACA421F9CC8 for <json@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 16:23:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qa0-f53.google.com with SMTP id k4so32978qaq.5 for <json@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 16:23:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=KJ2jF5FR1n6GMEvNl70EHwaandeX068pulDnpWOHMhw=; b=GkxB9Dj2jdz14UWJG1u9ZGNLE/ad8p3Ho4YfGsbsQupqHKRGtiCqYmfsfMHuGxGuqy FnYJ1u7GMmDb66B6NsktSykmk3i0ocrhnjOlNT6s0+yuChyMZay4XSK0qat9sgkSQFD8 sA/u6R1JHccy8a2/usYUzP+jSSUuy3gD6RnwqOMDRKxrfxhZtp3OmlZ6+vFB0pup7BYl dcADP2DjemicDXQh/4yJ2IWsMriyOxFILxuuS+QZc/zCNQVmWPplV3VFIbudjVFmnCs2 T41rRrx8IYH+xlmydleoyoa+p37ZLvgdP08hbtliNozJOI5Izk/MpbsCCZqJ1E1CRkQv H9PQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.49.132.233 with SMTP id ox9mr5191754qeb.36.1380237824581; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 16:23:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.140.86.147 with HTTP; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 16:23:44 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <23C96FBA-3419-4C97-A075-462F7443013A@vpnc.org>
References: <BF7E36B9C495A6468E8EC573603ED9411EF1BB0B@xmb-aln-x11.cisco.com> <CAChr6SyznBktmOLpT-EiZ5Nm_0jZ16M0tOo4aZ_jhSDb=HHDqg@mail.gmail.com> <23C96FBA-3419-4C97-A075-462F7443013A@vpnc.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 16:23:44 -0700
Message-ID: <CAChr6SxCpvGaZSGUDs+6vR4A5xv3NfzpRSkwsE_7c8ep+EX=YA@mail.gmail.com>
From: R S <sayrer@gmail.com>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7bdc7ffa3d6c9304e751a90d"
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: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 23:23:53 -0000

On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 11:36 AM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>wrote:

> On Sep 26, 2013, at 10:31 AM, R S <sayrer@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Charter:
> > >
> > > All differences between RFC 4627 or the current ECMAScript
> specification > will be documented in the new RFC.
> >
> > 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.
>
> <no hat>
>
> Based on what we have learned in the last six months, it might be better
> for this RFC *not* to do what the charter says.
>


Are you saying the concerns you list below warrant a recharter? If so, I
disagree.



>
> - TC39 is actively revising ECMAScript and it is not clear whether the
> -bis draft of their version will be out first.
>

We have a reference to ECMAScript in the draft already.



> - Some of what ECMAscript says about JSON is intertwingled with the
> definition of ECMAscript, such as "exactly how to interpret numbers"
>


We wouldn't even need to add a reference to explain this:

"4.3.19 Number value
primitive value corresponding to a double-precision 64-bit binary format
IEEE 754 value"

<http://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/5.1/#sec-4.3.19>

 - Rob