IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Json] Consensus on JSON-text (WAS: JSON: remove gap between Ecma-404 and IETF draft)

Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> Thu, 28 November 2013 04:00 UTC

Return-Path: <tbray@textuality.com>
X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B8AA1AE1C4 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 20:00:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qPksoR_lpLaJ for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 20:00:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vc0-f180.google.com (mail-vc0-f180.google.com [209.85.220.180]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD3811AE1C8 for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 20:00:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vc0-f180.google.com with SMTP id if17so5384762vcb.39 for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 20:00:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=JoXQE8ydz4NWZCf9Zx+4tKCmOm0oTBthWhcmakybZjA=; b=Lk7aAM8LUYjHevzZFpUrzxgxPNKfnfxnypapP5GvKpEONaBQVR3221aLQTyIYDtmgF qgBRas3MY52zLVVGkBZKO/M50/bD1pQAOdzIhf+LkY85G9rEukHlBimM2MFvmzz6un4L ayJznNvG+Qvoq/fcbRGe4AducSIrSrXykC6WqW2lOB2sNAjx+1c2m3XbGnJvryDfcowK TYeYaiuJBYhms7eCvYyteNBF5qxnCesftwhrehr6bUOezyANXaessEmQIo7TPAboFa0z lkeqdt7Uhr2toTO1YVq65WzKMrafZJHBMv6u8MeAP4Fu0oYplz9ovqJ+3F1f1glNesFp 5B+A==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQliSQLXEVvf24Flfon8s+OrrpTUwI2EHK+Kdf6o7VlW0AzNzp8VXK5zrBw/HHRKrJmOltt0
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.52.0.9 with SMTP id 9mr1866077vda.47.1385611212861; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 20:00:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.220.198.199 with HTTP; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 20:00:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Originating-IP: [24.84.235.32]
In-Reply-To: <CANr5HFVhG5SNhW4yJxDicvFman94FaNi8UZHhcpQbH6AG6pfQg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADnb78h8AjPcQLOCwNm0Pt3pObh6uFV5+zy0c_YU6B-u4MtY1Q@mail.gmail.com> <AA45B3C6-1DC5-4B1E-8045-C9FE76022584@vpnc.org> <C93F89AD-81D2-4489-ADC4-AB05A5B10883@cisco.com> <CAHBU6itgE9=WP+c0oXt1W647b1zz+N6+4ZqRa63Ve91TUsGzTA@mail.gmail.com> <CANr5HFVhG5SNhW4yJxDicvFman94FaNi8UZHhcpQbH6AG6pfQg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 20:00:12 -0800
Message-ID: <CAHBU6it-yHeHVY+3EFvPd0pVu4uLLdH3Gmz53LL4DZWJSyyUuQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
To: Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="e89a8ffba4d923c72204ec34c0a5"
Cc: es-discuss <es-discuss@mozilla.org>, JSON WG <json@ietf.org>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>, "Matt Miller (mamille2)" <mamille2@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [Json] Consensus on JSON-text (WAS: JSON: remove gap between Ecma-404 and IETF draft)
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 04:00:16 -0000

I listed some arguments against this in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2013Oct/0041.html and at the
moment I still believe them. Is there new information?

On top of that, I have no fear of anyone trying to change JSON in the
future; they would be resoundingly ignored by the community of
implementers.  I speak as one who would love to add built-in date/time
literals but know that it won’t happen.  -T


On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>wrote:

> Will you also be citing ECMA-404 normatively to avoid this sort of
> divergence in the future?
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> wrote:
>
>> To do this, I think the draft requires these changes:
>>
>> - Remove the trailing section of section 1.2, starting with “ECMAscript
>> 5.1 enumerates...” [because the difference no longer exists]
>>
>> - In section 2:
>>
>> -- remove “A JSON text is a serialized object or array.”
>>
>> -- Insert: “A JSON text is a serialized value.  Note that certain
>> previous specifications of JSON constrained a JSON text to be an object or
>> an array.  Implementations which generate only objects or arrays where a
>> JSON text is called for will be interoperable in the sense that all
>> implementations will accept these as conforming JSON texts.”
>>
>> -- Change the JSON-text production to read:
>>
>> JSON-text  = value
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 10:21 AM, Matt Miller (mamille2) <
>> mamille2@cisco.com> wrote:
>>
>>> There appears to be consensus to change JSON-text to allow for any JSON
>>> value -- not just object / array -- while noting that object or array as
>>> the top-level is the most interoperable.
>>>
>>> We will ask the Document Editor to make this change to
>>> draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis.
>>>
>>>
>>> - Paul Hoffman and Matt Miller
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> json mailing list
>>> json@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>>>
>>>
>>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email