Re: [Json] REMINDER - WGLC Ends 2013-10-11

Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> Fri, 11 October 2013 02:30 UTC

Return-Path: <tbray@textuality.com>
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 032F321E8197 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 19:30:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.84
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.84 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.136, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 jFOg2J1WNJWt for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 19:30:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lb0-f181.google.com (mail-lb0-f181.google.com [209.85.217.181]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C51F21E8196 for <json@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 19:30:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lb0-f181.google.com with SMTP id u14so2808244lbd.40 for <json@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 19:30:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=dpHmjwJwEozKKsGOO3UkgsItyRzQK8AQolTzvR8U0eo=; b=GeqTf+RrQQt2ASEcQ8TGruByapF3+sbPGCqytzOqCnnt567CAPg7koezOdWXGD0Gzn p6cQ6J1yq29Toq8JKboPJZ3rYw1Lel5wr/hj7DxHoLqhXaRsWQbqgkfFE7YrGW/6s+3E r4vmzWCi8ZUKHxsQG9aTNkPypbkyaKhT4iIyGaOp6Vy2NIBNhLtIr/SPtF5ekgVY5Akk QljF6jj61L2/h0659e24VNV82xxXfoa2x0qKCxFOpwLTrULVi6xFjOxDUyIRQawwiFE8 ZuMVEonlQv1psMJVkbOdynf3Knkh7PyH6J4InUH+/sshQmiDJKbYlVkZw+pMMY2SBPa8 ZpPw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnt30XNpjs0FxXLpfRh4c3U00LewHCyTaxbOZ9vkzSF0diC61ZW4og0cIYKMAhUmbeWEkja
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.2.4 with SMTP id 4mr14107934laq.0.1381458607334; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 19:30:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.114.10.200 with HTTP; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 19:30:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [24.84.235.32]
In-Reply-To: <20131011014141.15895.qmail@joyce.lan>
References: <BF7E36B9C495A6468E8EC573603ED9411EF4E2DB@xmb-aln-x11.cisco.com> <20131011014141.15895.qmail@joyce.lan>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 19:30:07 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHBU6iseLxLy0QXJhcKyz8MOi-KGy18p5gFo7yvrS=NeRLUvAQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0112c51c8ff73604e86de510
Cc: Matthew Miller <mamille2@cisco.com>, "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] REMINDER - WGLC Ends 2013-10-11
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: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 02:30:15 -0000

I’m OK with John’s changes, except for the MAY variation in section 9.  The
second half, with all the instances of lower-case “may”, is talking about
implementation behavior.  I had read it as advice for the reader as for
what implementations might do.  So turning those into MAY means that they
normatively describe behavior of conforming implementations.  Are we really
OK with that?  My instinct is that, since this spec has held together
pretty well all these years, why don’t we leave this alone?  -T


On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 6:41 PM, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> This draft is ready to publish.  I have a few editorial comments,
> none of which I think would be contentious.
>
> Section 1.2 says:
>
>    Object; thus, for example, "Hello world!", "42", and "true" would all
>    be valid JSON texts in the ECMAScript 5.1 context.
>
> My guess is that the quotes are intended to be part of "Hello world!"
> but not part of 42 or true.  Dunno how to fix that other than perhaps
> to display them, e.g.
>
>    Object; thus, for example, these would all
>    be valid JSON texts in the ECMAScript 5.1 context:
>
>         "Hello world!"
>         42
>         true
>
> Please move section 1.4, the list of changes, to the end.  I think
> that most people will be more interested in the JSON spec rather
> than the minutiae of what's changed.
>
> Section 9 has some upper case MAY and some lower case.  It should
> probably be consistent one way or the other.  I realize this is
> currently unchanged from 4627.
>
> In section 11, the Published specification should be this document,
> not RFC 4627.  Since this is standards track, shouldn't the change
> controller now be the IETF?
>
> R's,
> John
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.21 (FreeBSD)
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAlJXV2oACgkQkEiFRdeC/kVapgCeIERm3QfwTBxFq5AxTmUpPKQT
> 85gAniYwpILyl3iYeppy1KW9VhmxINJR
> =8rQb
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> json mailing list
> json@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>