Re: [Json] Minimal edit proposal, second round

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

Matt,
On 6/27/13 12:18 AM, Matt Miller (mamille2) wrote:
> I think the minimal edit useful as a way to move forward: it notes the
> original had warts, that "properly" (for varying definitions of
> "properly") correcting those warts could cause worse conditions, but
> that there are a plethora of implementations that coexist with very
> few reported problems. I think the edits do bring to the surface
> information that has been unspoken for a long time. I could easily
> live with it, and leave the definitive "this is what JSON software
> ought to do from this point forward" for a separate document. -

I think you have to go one step further.  You have to explain how to
avoid the warts.  We have normative language for that purpose.

Eliot