IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> Fri, 27 September 2013 02:46 UTC

Return-Path: <cowan@ccil.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 B489821F9E52 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 19:46:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.244
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.244 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.355, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 deOlyIf-a9cu for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 19:45:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from earth.ccil.org (earth.ccil.org [192.190.237.11]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56F7021F9D62 for <json@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 19:45:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cowan by earth.ccil.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <cowan@ccil.org>) id 1VPO42-000713-Vf; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 22:45:55 -0400
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 22:45:54 -0400
From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
To: R S <sayrer@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20130927024554.GA27195@mercury.ccil.org>
References: <BF7E36B9C495A6468E8EC573603ED9411EF1BB0B@xmb-aln-x11.cisco.com> <CAChr6SyznBktmOLpT-EiZ5Nm_0jZ16M0tOo4aZ_jhSDb=HHDqg@mail.gmail.com> <23C96FBA-3419-4C97-A075-462F7443013A@vpnc.org> <CAChr6SxCpvGaZSGUDs+6vR4A5xv3NfzpRSkwsE_7c8ep+EX=YA@mail.gmail.com> <0FA0EFFF-2109-4D78-8723-2ECD990C0F82@vpnc.org> <CAChr6SwxgG=P2CYSfHkviG8+2vz6yK1fZQNMCvyWXrM1NgzLZQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAChr6SwxgG=P2CYSfHkviG8+2vz6yK1fZQNMCvyWXrM1NgzLZQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Sender: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
Cc: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, JSON WG <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [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: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 02:46:03 -0000

R S scripsit:

> > No, I was suggesting we ignore the charter and beg for forgiveness.
> 
> Bad suggestion--the charter means what it says. If it doesn't, integrity
> would compel us to consider all of the suggestions that fall outside of the
> charter.

There is a big difference between not doing what the charter says we
should, and doing what the charter says we should not.  Paul is proposing
that we ask forgiveness for a sin of omission; you are saying that that
is equivalent to arbitrary sins of commission.  It isn't.

-- 
John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>             http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Awk!" sed Grep. "A fscking python is perloining my Ruby; let me bash
    him with a Cshell!  Vi didn't I mount it on a troff?" --Francis Turner

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email