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

[Tony Hansen <[e-mail]>]

On 10/2/2013 2:50 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On Oct 2, 2013, at 10:59 AM, R S <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> ECMAScript 5.1 contains JSON
> Are you saying we should change the reference that was in RFC 4627? Or that we should leave the old reference but create a section on differences that points to 5.1?

It's clear to me that the current ECMAScript reference is a mixed bag
and does not make sense internally. Nor does it match the thrust of the
text around its reference.

I'm wondering if it would be useful to have the first paragraph of
section 1 cut back. Then expand on JSON's relationship with JavaScript
and ECMAScript into another short section that can be a bit more
historical in nature.

******
1. Introduction

JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) is a text format for the serialization
of structured data.  [text cut out here] JSON can represent ....

[the rest of section 1 is unchanged]

1.1 Relationship with ECMAScript

The definition of JSON is based on the object literals of the JavaScript
language, as defined in the ECMAScript Programming Language Standard,
Third Edition [ECMA3]. Note that JSON purposely restricts its definition
to the representation of structured data, that is an object or array.

Subsequent releases of the ECMAScript spec [ECMA5] have introduced
support for an extended version of JSON. In particular, their
JSON.parse() function accepts a superset of JSON as specified in this
document.

******

   [ECMA3]     European Computer Manufacturers Association, "ECMAScript
              Language Specification 3rd Edition ", December 1999,
             
<http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST-ARCH/ECMA-262,%203rd%20edition,%20December%201999.pdf>.

   [ECMA5]     European Computer Manufacturers Association, "ECMAScript
              Language Specification 5th Edition ", June 2011,
              <http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/
              ecma-st/ECMA-262.pdf>.


******

I'm going to discuss the second paragraph of section 1 in a separate email.

    Tony