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

[R S <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 6:18 PM, Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Sep 26, 2013, at 5:54 PM, R S <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> > On Sep 26, 2013, at 4:23 PM, R S <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > > Are you saying the concerns you list below warrant a recharter? If so,
> I disagree.
> >
> > No, I was suggesting we ignore the charter and beg for forgiveness.
> >
> > Bad suggestion--the charter means what it says. If it doesn't, integrity
> would compel us to consider all of the suggestions that fall outside of the
> charter.
>
> Sorry if you don't feel that we are acting in "integrity".
>

Maybe you should explain why you think it's OK to suddenly ignore the
charter? Don't you think it's inconsistent with telling people to go away
because their suggestions don't fit the charter?



>
> > There is no JSON definition in ECMAScript 3.
>
Whatever you want to call the third edition:


I'm sorry--are you nitpicking my term for what you called "3"? Hopefully we
can raise the level of discourse.



> > We are free to cite the current version of ECMAScript, as Tim points out.
>
> Only if we can agree on what that version is. And if we can agree that
> doing so actually brings value to the document. The latter is more
> important to me than the coin we use for the former.
>

We do agree on the latter--we already have the charter that says so.



>
> > Again, we won't be citing a future version with hypothetical changes.
> >
> > > But you seem keen on us having such a section. Please provide the full
> wording for what you
> > > think would be valuable to include.
> >
> > I already have--feel free to reuse it.
>
> It was:
>

No.


>
> 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.
>
> Do others here agree with all three parts? Or is there different suggested
> wording?
>

That text is not what I was referring to.


>
> Also: You did not include the second bullet from ECMAScript 5.1, Section
> 15.12. Is there a reason for that?
>

That bullet point is misleadingly worded. I can tell you this because I
wrote a widely-used JSON implementation for RFC4267 that had to be adjusted
for ECMAScript 5. The two biggest changes were to ban trailing commas in
objects and accept primitive values at the root.

- Rob