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

Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> Wed, 02 October 2013 23:06 UTC

Return-Path: <tbray@textuality.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 27E2F21F8F3C for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 16:06:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.976
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 ZZaQf8Lh9XWD for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 16:06:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vb0-f53.google.com (mail-vb0-f53.google.com [209.85.212.53]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91A1821F92E7 for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 16:05:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vb0-f53.google.com with SMTP id i3so1119910vbh.12 for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 02 Oct 2013 16:05:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=8ZeowizvAwMzxNh49fgsKkVm7WnUX/SRLQPc9kCj0IY=; b=Fdjvvw3zPjCMKzbvexJfccSujRzAGcdTv8C1GGpkXYHqmpDR1QofePephtf4JDOBp9 k1G8I8kqA5yV0hqZYH5iiZ15SiDV70atJhQH/hwby3Y12xRo4enlICDFpjgQzHn0rUiy bwLO60If7lKx5IbUQghJqZBLhHyfy3SZqDYK3LdCpuSWK05XUFgi5HJFg5CP7v3/pTgy hg5LLu0DxfknACFjM/hk4F+yG/5HiUq1V6IZow1Z7ooHdJ6kU69OJJ/L9ThNfxl2s79M 0dwpmEY5YzoBOj5lYOEVH1xOsKAKWYVB3ircfYmPHYgJK8/Joa/031Tkx+yVeJA6O61e Tptw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl68APf+k/y3lYKm/MwRdijpKgKV4xzRo9hQ1AW6rPtmWvgvSX2IKX6g0JXpTG+0Qb7BBR2
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.59.11.69 with SMTP id eg5mr4281560ved.17.1380755143909; Wed, 02 Oct 2013 16:05:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.174.197 with HTTP; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 16:05:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [172.19.29.195]
In-Reply-To: <02FF1DAF-EF03-48C0-BD97-0AE4E16B1066@jorgechamorro.com>
References: <BF7E36B9C495A6468E8EC573603ED9411EF1BB0B@xmb-aln-x11.cisco.com> <CAChr6SyznBktmOLpT-EiZ5Nm_0jZ16M0tOo4aZ_jhSDb=HHDqg@mail.gmail.com> <23C96FBA-3419-4C97-A075-462F7443013A@vpnc.org> <CAHBU6is2WzCNCwa0PYMM1Hr3Lij0GxWkVtVUan9=JPbvv0YCZg@mail.gmail.com> <CAChr6Sw72kxm8qJiDu=XMnARCttQPc5GNRQaXz4Xw9y+6-3=Mg@mail.gmail.com> <421F79DF-0B88-4E24-8666-189228E6E189@vpnc.org> <CAChr6SyEBkhbB5Mrr1AAqevzouvSa7Cx+qtvBx=HPCdgAiQjOg@mail.gmail.com> <20131002204435.GG30371@mercury.ccil.org> <CAHBU6ito+g2C-FkMC38kk3HQSgymAxNAyDof6O7TRvSHdNVsYg@mail.gmail.com> <02FF1DAF-EF03-48C0-BD97-0AE4E16B1066@jorgechamorro.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 16:05:43 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHBU6isVST=9mrjsrTMsSgt2ZWsxR6jtpttGRwgPg3SOMJT=wg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
To: Jorge Chamorro <jorge@jorgechamorro.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7bf0dc6cdff82804e7ca1bed"
Cc: R S <sayrer@gmail.com>, John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, 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: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 23:06:42 -0000

First para of 1 says “JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) is a text format
for the serialization of structured data. It is derived from the object
literals of JavaScript, as defined in the ECMAScript Programming Language
Standard, Third Edition [ECMA].”

I think that on balance we don’t want to screw with the words, and I’d be
OK with leading the reference to the 1998 version as it is in the original.
We’ll need another reference to 5.1 to put the pointer to their list of
differences, which I’ll find a home for somewhere.




On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Jorge Chamorro <jorge@jorgechamorro.com>wrote:

> On 02/10/2013, at 22:47, Tim Bray wrote:
>
> > Does it matter in the slightest to anyone on the planet what it was
> derived from?
>
> Yes, of course.
>
> --
> ( Jorge )();