IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Json] Two Documents

"Markus Lanthaler" <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> Wed, 19 June 2013 07:41 UTC

Return-Path: <markus.lanthaler@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 2217B21F9A43 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 00:41:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.15
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.15 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT=1.449]
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 FmOc3GfiUYIx for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 00:40:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.19]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0544221F9A35 for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 00:40:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([10.1.76.19]) by mrigmx.server.lan (mrigmx001) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0M8cSj-1U3Ay32Hlz-00wI0x for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 09:40:56 +0200
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 19 Jun 2013 07:40:56 -0000
Received: from 84-115-182-43.dynamic.surfer.at (EHLO Vostro3500) [84.115.182.43] by mail.gmx.net (mp019) with SMTP; 19 Jun 2013 09:40:56 +0200
X-Authenticated: #419883
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18JOvk+B0gJmuYb1hBAwKS0D3Xx9p1hyVlNmjnCF2 4qbaYY9eB2wgM+
From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
To: json@ietf.org
References: <51B9EA49.2050604@crockford.com> <BF7E36B9C495A6468E8EC573603ED9411528A0E2@xmb-aln-x11.cisco.com> <51C1121E.8050004@crockford.com> <A3CE009B-CF14-4B2F-86C4-E2E06165316E@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <A3CE009B-CF14-4B2F-86C4-E2E06165316E@vpnc.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 09:40:49 +0200
Message-ID: <00c301ce6cc0$52d84970$f888dc50$@lanthaler>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Ac5smxunFEMXs5GYSUi9FXDB0oNhrwAJTGJw
Content-Language: de
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Subject: Re: [Json] Two Documents
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, 19 Jun 2013 07:41:04 -0000

On Wednesday, June 19, 2013 5:14 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> The parser and generator sections define interoperability
> specifications. Removing them is a huge change to the technical
> specification, one that feels well outside of the "minimal changes" in
> our charter.
> 
> I still want the WG to later work on an implementation guidance
> document after we have finished work on refining the current technical
> specification; in fact, it is probably negligent if we don't make a run
> at that. But calling requirements on parsers and generators
> "implementation guidance" at this late date seems like a very bad move.

+1


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler

v2.29.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status