Re: [Json] Proposal: the minimal edit

[Norbert Lindenberg <[e-mail]>]

On Jun 22, 2013, at 10:48 , Tim Bray wrote:

> BTW I should say that I have some sympathy with Rob’s viewpoint here.  It looks like it might be hard to get consensus about the nits we want to pick here on 4627, and JSON in the wild works just fine, and the real de facto irritant is that ECMAScript does some non-4627-blessed things.  I’m willing to put some more work into the struggle for consensus, but if we just decided to give up, just add a “Stupid ECMAScript Tricks” section then declare victory, that wouldn’t be a terrible outcome. -T

Which of these "non-4627-blessed things" is done only by ECMAScript? The one Rob mentioned, producing and consuming primitive JSON values at the root level, can also be found, e.g., in the JSON implementation in Python:
http://docs.python.org/3/library/json.html#top-level-non-object-non-array-values

A section about ECMAScript may be useful because of the central position of JavaScript in browsers in the web eco system. But the assumption that all other JSON implementations are in agreement and only ECMAScript does "stupid tricks" doesn't match reality.

Norbert