Re: [Json] Minimal edit proposal, second round

[Nico Williams <[e-mail]>]

On Jun 26, 2013 2:15 PM, "Tim Bray" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Yeah, but our charter clearly doesn’t let us fix JSON.  What we need is
to do something like this, then re-charter to produce a doc that provides
real guidance, so that, as someone in this thread pointed out, other
Working Groups will have something to point to and won’t, as is currently
happening in Jose, have to write explicit language forbidding dupes, etc,
into their drafts.  So I’m in favor of doing this minimal
point-out-the-problems work and moving on. -T

We could also re-charter now (or conclude w/o producing any docs, as
someone else pointed out).  There's no dishonor in acknowledging that the
current charter is unsatisfactory, if we so conclude.

I'm for a minimal edit that describes the different interpretations of the
old text that we have seen.  We could also note that there is a subset of
JSON that will (MUST) interop (no dup names, smallish integers, only
Unicode character data and unassigned code points), though we can't rewrite
that encoders restrict themselves to that subset.  Then we can look at
implementation guidance (e.g., parser options) and best practices.

Nico
--