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

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Thu, 05 December 2013 06:44 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
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 A064E1AE393 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 22:44:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.551
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 Upq8bj012B2d for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 22:44:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58D2C1AE390 for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 22:44:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de
Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rB56hv6o002874; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 07:43:57 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [192.168.217.105] (p548901B4.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.137.1.180]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 457327C6; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 07:43:55 +0100 (CET)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1822\))
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <20131205044253.GH21240@localhost>
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2013 07:43:52 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D4601105-6F83-4709-B309-298529E4B17E@tzi.org>
References: <C7707CE2-C43E-4171-AE96-9FAFDCE53317@cisco.com> <20131205044253.GH21240@localhost>
To: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1822)
Cc: JSON WG <json@ietf.org>, "Matt Miller (mamille2)" <mamille2@cisco.com>
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: Thu, 05 Dec 2013 06:44:12 -0000

On 05 Dec 2013, at 05:42, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> wrote:

> I don't think we ought to demand anything more than stability for
>   normatively referencing ECMA-404. 

Whoa.  
Actually, a major prerequisite is that any spec we rely on by referencing it normatively is a good specification.

Saying that the process leading to ECMA-404 wasn’t open may also be a veiled expression of dissatisfaction with the outcome.  (I have said openly that ECMA-404 is a great tutorial, just not a very good specification; some others have been trying to be more diplomatic about this.)

I still haven’t heard any argument that invalidates the very good ones made in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2013Oct/0041.html (except for the fact that we are now tracking the gratuitous change that allows non-containers on the top-level).

Grüße, Carsten