Re: [Json] The London meeting

Larry Masinter <> Mon, 10 March 2014 02:01 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 154DE1A0388 for <>; Sun, 9 Mar 2014 19:01:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OwIhrzXdnZ41 for <>; Sun, 9 Mar 2014 19:01:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CFC21A0390 for <>; Sun, 9 Mar 2014 19:01:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.893.10; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 02:01:34 +0000
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.0893.001; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 02:01:34 +0000
From: Larry Masinter <>
To: Tim Bray <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [Json] The London meeting
Thread-Index: AQHPO63SLJH4uoC8/0WQSsofERHmWZrZkGEQ
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 02:01:33 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
x-forefront-prvs: 014617085B
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019001)(6009001)(428001)(189002)(199002)(377454003)(2656002)(95666003)(92566001)(74662001)(31966008)(63696002)(16236675002)(81816001)(94946001)(87936001)(19300405004)(97336001)(85306002)(94316002)(97186001)(74876001)(74502001)(81542001)(95416001)(87266001)(15975445006)(49866001)(56816005)(74706001)(83072002)(74316001)(56776001)(74366001)(47736001)(81342001)(54316002)(93516002)(66066001)(46102001)(65816001)(85852003)(93136001)(15202345003)(59766001)(77982001)(80022001)(83322001)(47976001)(79102001)(90146001)(16601075003)(4396001)(80976001)(19580395003)(69226001)(76482001)(81686001)(54356001)(53806001)(86362001)(51856001)(19580405001)(50986001)(33646001)(76796001)(76786001)(76576001)(24736002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BL2PR02MB323;; CLIP:; FPR:FC7EF697.BCF657D9.B9F47570.4C622D32.20216; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (: does not designate permitted sender hosts)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_c6dc523d00ac4619a7d12dcd7bb6f90eBL2PR02MB307namprd02pro_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Json] The London meeting
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 02:01:43 -0000

I just wonder if what’s needed is a single profile.

For example, security-conscious applications which are concerned about spoofing -- that different implementations of JSON.parse(string A) vs. JSON.parse(string B) will yield different answers to whether those are equivalent – might give different answers.

If the goal is to insure that doesn’t happen, you should state the goal. Right now “is this worth specifying?” seems unsupported by concrete use cases. Even an informational background reference for justification would help.


From: json [] On Behalf Of Tim Bray
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 8:38 AM
Subject: [Json] The London meeting

I was sort of hoping the chairs would take the sense of the WG as to whether we should proceed with a re-chartering based on I-JSON + maybe nomenclature.  There was lots of discussion on the bits of I-JSON that need discussion, but very little on “is this worth specifying?”

To our chairs: Your sense of this issue?