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

Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> Sat, 12 October 2013 02:34 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 98FE711E81F4 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 19:34:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.874
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.874 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.102, 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 lJYIlf5Schjg for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 19:34:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vb0-f48.google.com (mail-vb0-f48.google.com [209.85.212.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5F6F11E8158 for <json@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 19:34:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vb0-f48.google.com with SMTP id w16so3301697vbf.7 for <json@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 19:34:36 -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=o3dZFiCYG7Ov6RaeMW5YqHlCIYZGr6pCoFMqsQJ5ogY=; b=c5k5+fuUU40i/lTw3ziBecLMb+naY10yNVoeKrJ3FyRmRg+ZIQAXh3V6s+sH7kDl/Q F5/ZwgVWqXQHmzkyViJDeDKgHctYJWAIZh1h2as6kEll9Le1YXJw9a/tsn7yXjU3WtJ7 H4M/1ZbGWUYHkiGkGoq1thHwP0WHdqlZPs3zC/YsU9qPQ/3z6vsr/gPeuipkmAcZXF0Y uUNqhPigZ1xi77hesePmuiSTiUhqFk3fXiOL8JGkPM4N3k5LAMtgY/EqXeOfM41V7+8b gZOhy7FlF9M0jZalPS2uSlu+Nacnt5jotPvfGF9BGoZfu784WuT0WGSN9drGzLlcIaSy EFkg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnC43jBiNYisb+yXdtNi2IkMOYYGD3YBKDp13ejsEVsvy1u8ym3oGaRxbzHS8xJ6c9iW0jJ
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.52.170.232 with SMTP id ap8mr79687vdc.40.1381545275879; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 19:34:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.174.197 with HTTP; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 19:34:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [24.84.235.32]
In-Reply-To: <5258B2F4.6040502@cisco.com>
References: <BF7E36B9C495A6468E8EC573603ED9411EF4E2DB@xmb-aln-x11.cisco.com> <5258B2F4.6040502@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 19:34:35 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHBU6isXZUT5AySY=ZS1gjaRSSRZySwnOLVfFoiUmiU22_1wyA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b6d7aae69040a04e882134b
Cc: JSON WG <json@ietf.org>, "Matt Miller \(mamille2\)" <mamille2@cisco.com>
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: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 02:34:41 -0000

Note that those differences are not *normative*; they are simply
explanations of which legal JSON idioms can increase the risk of
interoperability problems.  There remains no normative difference between
any of the flavors of JSON except that the ECMA specs don’t require
array/object at the top level.


On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 7:24 PM, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> wrote:

>  I have one unanswered technical question from earlier, when I wrote:
>
> What I would suggest is that at the very least we understand the
> differences, so that we know what we're getting into.
>
>  I think John Cowan answered this question in part in his mail of October
> 8th (Re: [Json] FYI ECMA, W3C, IETF coordination on JSON) by stating that
> ECMA 404 is pretty much RFC 4627.  Therefore, so long as we have in the
> draft an accurate and up-to-date list of changes, then at least we know if
> we are introducing interoperability problems.  Section 1.3 sort of does
> this, but should be cleaned up to be succinct and limited to TECHNICAL
> changes ONLY.  Other changes should be moved to the back.
>
> The key differences, therefore, are as follows:
>
>    - No specific version of unicode.
>    - Specific language on duplicate members
>    - Discussion of character model
>    - IEEE numbers and number  ABNF
>
>
> Are those all the technical differences?
>
> Eliot
>
>
> On 10/9/13 11:21 PM, Matt Miller (mamille2) wrote:
>
> A reminder that the current Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis officially ends on Friday, October 11.  Please provide any feedback as soon as you can, even if it's "the draft is good enough".
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> - Paul Hoffman and Matt Miller
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> json mailing listjson@ietf.orghttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> json mailing list
> json@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>
>