IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Thu, 26 September 2013 18:36 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39D8A21F9E54 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 11:36:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id affQ6sB9Lckr for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 11:36:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1A9221F9343 for <json@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 11:36:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [165.227.249.247] (sn80.proper.com [75.101.18.80]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.7/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r8QIa0UB013828 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for <json@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 11:36:01 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: hoffman.proper.com: Host sn80.proper.com [75.101.18.80] claimed to be [165.227.249.247]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAChr6SyznBktmOLpT-EiZ5Nm_0jZ16M0tOo4aZ_jhSDb=HHDqg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 11:36:00 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <23C96FBA-3419-4C97-A075-462F7443013A@vpnc.org>
References: <BF7E36B9C495A6468E8EC573603ED9411EF1BB0B@xmb-aln-x11.cisco.com> <CAChr6SyznBktmOLpT-EiZ5Nm_0jZ16M0tOo4aZ_jhSDb=HHDqg@mail.gmail.com>
To: JSON WG <json@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
Subject: [Json] Differences between RFC 4627 or the current ECMAScript specification
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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, 26 Sep 2013 18:36:03 -0000

On Sep 26, 2013, at 10:31 AM, R S <sayrer@gmail.com> wrote:

> Charter:
> >
> > All differences between RFC 4627 or the current ECMAScript specification > will be documented in the new RFC.
> 
> 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.

<no hat>

Based on what we have learned in the last six months, it might be better for this RFC *not* to do what the charter says.

- TC39 is actively revising ECMAScript and it is not clear whether the -bis draft of their version will be out first.

- Some of what ECMAscript says about JSON is intertwingled with the definition of ECMAscript, such as "exactly how to interpret numbers"

I'm no longer sure that a long-lasting RFC interpreting parts of another SDO's spec is a good idea.

--Paul Hoffman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email