Re: [Json] Proposed document set from this WG

"Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <> Wed, 20 February 2013 16:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CCD821F88A9 for <>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 08:51:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.299
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_45=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VIQ3kJwhX8mc for <>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 08:51:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F4D521F87CC for <>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 08:51:06 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=2130; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1361379066; x=1362588666; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=JzKC1hTYcqdLmCDQL09ca/MRRGIA6v3iOTHx7vIYnd8=; b=M8dIlG8tOKlewRwt3Il4Qku7qsOdnaM6ekwT5IO37skfVUSHtpuO8wt9 xPsuykZ5hZ7d6JLFiEBUekpi54CFtNBNpXJy00jVxW3+LtkBoVKY2Qs5D 2+uSjMjtbz9VNR8jPwVbJ3wdjULzM1674ZReNGgjYFKdesUApdeMcYhCw I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,702,1355097600"; d="scan'208";a="179238529"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 20 Feb 2013 16:51:06 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r1KGp6KR010730 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 20 Feb 2013 16:51:06 GMT
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 10:51:05 -0600
From: "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <>
To: Paul Hoffman <>, R S <>
Thread-Topic: [Json] Proposed document set from this WG
Thread-Index: AQHODzYd4GSxDud/oEmpRv3zklbNKpiDUnUA//+TRwA=
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 16:51:05 +0000
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [Json] Proposed document set from this WG
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion related to JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\)." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 16:51:07 -0000

+1, with one caveat.  What if we find ECMAScript 5 and 4627 to be in
conflict in some way?

In particular, I find:

15.12: "Conforming implementations of JSON.parse and JSON.stringify must
support the exact interchange format described in this specification
without any deletions or extensions to the format. This differs from RFC
4627 which permits a JSON parser to accept non-JSON forms and extensions." The ABNF is constructed differently.  Hopefully in a completely
compatible way (looks that way with a couple of minutes analysis), but we
all know how finicky even small changes to ABNF can be. JSONText can be any value, not just object or array.  I think
this would be a positive change for 4627bis, perhaps with a note that
older processors are likely to reject any top level that is not an object
or array.

On 2/20/13 9:20 AM, "Paul Hoffman" <> wrote:

>On Feb 19, 2013, at 10:47 PM, R S <> wrote:
>> My suggestion is for the WG to target this use case only, and to treat
>> the JSON processing rules in ECMAScript 5, Section 15.12 (The JSON
>> Object) as the baseline for rules regarding encoding and decoding,
>> rather than RFC4627.
>It feels weird to be agreeing with Rob so early in the discusson, but I
>agree on both parts.
>- Charter 4627bis *and nothing else*, so that the 4627bis work is done
>without distraction. It is really clear that canonicalization and
>schema/description have the *high* potential for distraction.
>- Say that the base for that one charter item is RFC 4627 *and*
>ECMAScript 5, which seems to be widely-deployed.
>- Say that the WG is likely to recharter while 4627bis is under review by
>the IESG to discuss schema/description.
>- Given the recent consensus, don't mention canonicalization in the
>charter at all unless another WG or SDO has specifically asked us to work
>on it.
>--Paul Hoffman
>json mailing list

Joe Hildebrand