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

Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> Wed, 02 October 2013 18:09 UTC

Return-Path: <derhoermi@gmx.net>
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 B153421F9D7D for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 11:09:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 Bo3VbNv2G1ML for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 11:08:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0220421F9CBF for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 11:06:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from netb.Speedport_W_700V ([91.35.61.34]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx103) with ESMTPA (Nemesis) id 0MAy40-1VZ6Jb1qM8-009yh7 for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 02 Oct 2013 20:06:45 +0200
From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 20:06:33 +0200
Message-ID: <msno49dcetlu4jaelpu2jqk68116v27sgu@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
References: <BF7E36B9C495A6468E8EC573603ED9411EF1BB0B@xmb-aln-x11.cisco.com> <CAChr6SyznBktmOLpT-EiZ5Nm_0jZ16M0tOo4aZ_jhSDb=HHDqg@mail.gmail.com> <23C96FBA-3419-4C97-A075-462F7443013A@vpnc.org> <CAHBU6is2WzCNCwa0PYMM1Hr3Lij0GxWkVtVUan9=JPbvv0YCZg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHBU6is2WzCNCwa0PYMM1Hr3Lij0GxWkVtVUan9=JPbvv0YCZg@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 3.3/32.846
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:zcGTD/nY8LQzJiVIObNrSzc39V2TPiZU6iK2MtkvAHqFjlDebOp 9ARcCgBkUhEGbFA6B3hZVKQ6IZ1muzdCxoC6GNzaW7JZN8XHi5hlRVUxmEIsAmQQPuB2icX aGpuA+kzbvJow62uKvRd9QFqGrYRp/0cQX7W9zMAt0Bl4SQskwyAQzAmWvp3Vdmek9mKfii 68fdtqNbBru7pNytAMbhQ==
Cc: 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: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 18:09:10 -0000

* Tim Bray wrote:
>So, I (blush) confess to never having read ECMA-262, which is what 4627
>references.  I thought I’d have a glance; I'm assuming that what I want is:
>http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST-ARCH/ECMA-262,%203rd%20edition,%20December%201999.pdf

The JSON object was introduced in the 5th edition of the specification,
while you have the third edition from 1999. The current edition is 5.1,
http://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/5.1/#sec-15.12 with the JSON
object in section 15.12 as linked.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/