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

[Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]>]

On Sep 26, 2013, at 4:23 PM, R S <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Are you saying the concerns you list below warrant a recharter? If so, I disagree.

No, I was suggesting we ignore the charter and beg for forgiveness.

A different thought is to (a) assume that version 5.1 is the "current ECMAScript" and (b) simply mimic the two bullets from the beginning of Section 15.12. This worries me because the JSON definition in 5.1 is not exactly the same as 3 (which is what 4627 was based on), and it is not exactly the same as the JSON definition in the current draft of 6. Therefore, us saying "here are some differences" seems to be of more danger than actual value.

> - TC39 is actively revising ECMAScript and it is not clear whether the -bis draft of their version will be out first.
> 
> We have a reference to ECMAScript in the draft already.

So? It clearly is not to the current ECMAScript specification.

> - Some of what ECMAscript says about JSON is intertwingled with the definition of ECMAscript, such as "exactly how to interpret numbers"
> 
> 
> We wouldn't even need to add a reference to explain this:
> 
> "4.3.19 Number value
> primitive value corresponding to a double-precision 64-bit binary format IEEE 754 value"
> 
> <http://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/5.1/#sec-4.3.19>

That seems irrelevant. Section 15.12.2 and 15.12.3 talk about "Numbers", not "number values". TC39 might change this in version 6, or they might not; we cannot tell.

But you seem keen on us having such a section. Please provide the full wording for what you think would be valuable to include.

--Paul Hoffman