IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

R S <sayrer@gmail.com> Fri, 06 December 2013 22:44 UTC

Return-Path: <sayrer@gmail.com>
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 E7FB71AE09C for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Dec 2013 14:44:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=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 kfzFRXHQ5W_y for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Dec 2013 14:44:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qc0-x230.google.com (mail-qc0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20E111AE08E for <json@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Dec 2013 14:44:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qc0-f176.google.com with SMTP id i8so986659qcq.7 for <json@ietf.org>; Fri, 06 Dec 2013 14:44:21 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=UCp6dKE2hL6Dhu4OFvACUaL0o1IE4+F5dKZ0Adk/Y9k=; b=EK5hr5MuiVxx3rrcpwh5DnbO5J0UJKiT6FuMOzFRI5UsnT+hHVS5oHZ9cCqzSx0aM0 M4wqpbconXzVE1383js+m3BS3QE47lXVN381FkHEY33CW2j19F2MhmVLqVt6yK91GylM NnCLuXhjcUFGxY4P/2RGnxhPOHtr62NXqfG9IwkmzWf08ucazKRwjmWcVrn7zADgVchL UwvL6A7cP/0RgB4PWyz8vumW3p39gS6k/HBI1u2DpxEyFtkgbjQWvv5CA8kQf/pvRKnT KD7QfNEaGOTZGsaWFIYrj93mmE9lJKkvLQqh3iVRCjLYnzrReQMBXuF1p/XlTpoWRP42 KCmg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.224.51.196 with SMTP id e4mr10876416qag.16.1386369861031; Fri, 06 Dec 2013 14:44:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.140.101.40 with HTTP; Fri, 6 Dec 2013 14:44:20 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <4110D5CF-3720-4215-914E-0F0395207BB5@vpnc.org>
References: <C7707CE2-C43E-4171-AE96-9FAFDCE53317@cisco.com> <CAChr6Sx2g=DtwJbnMHugsoU4Rti_MsPjpOmG+=jWMBaPR3xs7g@mail.gmail.com> <4110D5CF-3720-4215-914E-0F0395207BB5@vpnc.org>
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2013 14:44:20 -0800
Message-ID: <CAChr6Swv1LE0qSOZFd7YG_O78Qoa-nZpbCHNWMKJPG_XoacBLA@mail.gmail.com>
From: R S <sayrer@gmail.com>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c29e50183a6604ece5633b"
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: Fri, 06 Dec 2013 22:44:27 -0000

On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote:

>
> The topic of "should we just refer to Ecma" came up multiple times before
> Ecma produced ECMA-404, and each time the consensus was to keep our
> definition.


In that case, I don't understand what the factual basis for the text in
this paragraph is. It sounds like editorializing.

- Rob

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email