Re: [Json] Last call: JSON charter

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Fri, 29 March 2013 20:34 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 77DA421F8EEA for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Mar 2013 13:34:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.394
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.394 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.205, 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 I2LO7fHVTDow for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Mar 2013 13:34:31 -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 E729E21F8D11 for <json@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Mar 2013 13:34:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.20.30.90] (50-1-98-12.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.1.98.12]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r2TKYQGj034096 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 29 Mar 2013 13:34:26 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\))
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <4fcdab52-196d-4ff0-94d3-f6a221e9013f@default>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 13:34:25 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <8E099C2D-DF59-463F-BFF3-1AB6E77BDBD4@vpnc.org>
References: <4fcdab52-196d-4ff0-94d3-f6a221e9013f@default>
To: Ray Polk <ray.polk@oracle.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503)
Cc: json@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Json] Last call: JSON charter
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion related to JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\)." <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, 29 Mar 2013 20:34:31 -0000

On Mar 29, 2013, at 12:41 PM, Ray Polk <ray.polk@oracle.com> wrote:

> Was it suggested (perhaps by Paul?) in Orlando that we consider reorganizing the RFC into three parts?

My presentation emphasized the different topics in the three sections already in RFC 4627. Section 2 is grammar, Section 3 is encoding, Section 4 is parsers, Section 5 is generators, and Section 6 is IANA considerations. I could see us reorganizing the document a bit to move the trivial amount of text from Section 5 into Section 3, maybe move the encoding discussion into the IANA considerations. The only reason we might want to reorganize the document is to make the topic split even clearer. For example, there is currently a sentence about parsers in the grammar section.

>  Then also perhaps replacing one of those parts with a reference to a corresponding section of the ECMAScript spec?  (sorry, I can't find the minutes from the BoF.)

There was discussion of that, but there was also pushback.

> Issues with ECMA dependencies notwithstanding, I liked the idea not repeating ourselves.  Would such an addition be too much of a distraction/detraction from the primary objectives?

That might be fodder for the WG discussion.

--Paul Hoffman