IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Json] Response to Statement from Ecma International TC39

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Mon, 09 December 2013 02:54 UTC

Return-Path: <mnot@mnot.net>
X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 734CD1AE151 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Dec 2013 18:54:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uUxHqQyQqB_3 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Dec 2013 18:54:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net (mxout-08.mxes.net [216.86.168.183]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B67621AE06A for <json@ietf.org>; Sun, 8 Dec 2013 18:54:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.57] (unknown [118.209.134.50]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2BC0750A84; Sun, 8 Dec 2013 21:54:33 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1822\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <E456E2BC-477A-4306-B676-8BDD52637CFB@vpnc.org>
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2013 13:54:29 +1100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <F87F544A-DD2E-46A4-B682-E84E86ADB74B@mnot.net>
References: <C7707CE2-C43E-4171-AE96-9FAFDCE53317@cisco.com> <CAHBU6iva2H-ovjmfA7=7j2KxUuXAMjhCb8fcMgKxq6hk+A9BtQ@mail.gmail.com> <5D573C1A-BC67-4E00-9EFC-B57172CB0478@mnot.net> <E456E2BC-477A-4306-B676-8BDD52637CFB@vpnc.org>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1822)
Cc: JSON WG <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] Response to Statement from Ecma International TC39
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Mon, 09 Dec 2013 02:54:42 -0000

On 8 Dec 2013, at 3:10 am, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote:

>> Why don’t we ask what their intent is for the future of 404, rather than tell them what we deem it might be?
> 
> Because their intent might change over time, just as anyone's might. Intention are not promises, nor should they be. If Ecma had looked at our intent for rfc4627bis nine months ago and thought they were promises, they would be really pissed at us. SDOs doing technical work are often surprised by what they find when a lot of different eyes focus on the topic, as you are well aware from your current experience in httpbis. 

I don’t disagree with your logic, but fully applied, we couldn’t reference our own publications, much less external ones.

Cheers,


--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email