Re: [Json] Normative reference reasoning and logistics

Just for the record, I also agree with Joe's text proposal.

Regards,   Martin.

On 2016/05/02 05:58, Tim Bray wrote:
> Never seen anything quite like this in an RFC, but it doesn’t feel crazy or
> damaging.
>
> I share the opinion expressed by others here that ECMA-404 is largely
> ignored and of marginal relevance, but I gather there’s a perceived benefit
> in establishing that ECMA & IETF are in sync on this subject.
>
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 10:06 AM, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) <
> jhildebr@cisco.com> wrote:
>
>> Going back to an earlier point in the thread:
>>
>> On 11/14/15, 11:10 AM, "Tim Bray" <tbray@textuality.com> wrote:
>>
>>> So, is there a *real* reason why a normative reference might be useful? I
>> think there might be, and it's purely rhetorical (in the formal sense,
>> designed to support an argument): To make it clear to the world
>>> that all JSON is the same JSON no matter where it's specified.  So I
>> think it would be plausible to add the following to the second paragraph of
>> section 1.2 of 7159 (for convenience:
>>> http://rfc7159.net/rfc7159#rfc.section.1.2 ):
>>>
>>> “The reference to ECMA-404 in the previous sentence is normative, not
>> with the usual meaning that implementors need to consult it in order to
>> understand this document, but to emphasize that there are no
>> inconsistencies in the definition of the term “JSON text” in any of its
>> specifications. Note, however, that ECMA-404 allows several practices which
>> this specification recommends avoiding in the interests of maximal
>> interoperability.”
>>
>> I like this text a lot.  Adding a few more points would be useful, I
>> believe:
>>
>> - The intent is that the grammar is the same between the two documents,
>> although different descriptions are used.  If there a difference is found
>> between them, ECMA and the IETF will work together to update both documents.
>>
>> - If an error is found with either document, the other should be examined
>> to see if it has a similar error, and fixed if possible.
>>
>> - If either document is changed in the future, ECMA and the IETF will work
>> together to ensure that the two documents stay aligned through the change.
>>
>>
>> There is liaison work to do to ensure that ECMA-404bis has similar
>> language, but I wouldn't have any problem with us publishing a 7159bis
>> draft that included language like this before ECMA is fully onboard.
>>
>> --
>> Joe Hildebrand
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> json mailing list
>> json@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> json mailing list
> json@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>