IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Json] JSON & ECMA

Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com> Sun, 24 March 2013 20:57 UTC

Return-Path: <masinter@adobe.com>
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 1E35A21F8DC0 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 13:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 wDWu4EnRRPgB for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 13:57:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod6og127.obsmtp.com (exprod6og127.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.78]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3851121F8DA6 for <json@ietf.org>; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 13:57:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outbound-smtp-2.corp.adobe.com ([193.104.215.16]) by exprod6ob127.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUU9ooFpwFz+o+Gf1OWz3htsVJ11puVbr@postini.com; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 13:57:08 PDT
Received: from inner-relay-4.eur.adobe.com (inner-relay-4b [10.128.4.237]) by outbound-smtp-2.corp.adobe.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id r2OKv32h018699; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 13:57:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nacas03.corp.adobe.com (nacas03.corp.adobe.com [10.8.189.121]) by inner-relay-4.eur.adobe.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id r2OKv1cF005109; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 13:57:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com ([10.8.189.95]) by nacas03.corp.adobe.com ([10.8.189.121]) with mapi; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 13:57:00 -0700
From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 13:56:58 -0700
Thread-Topic: [Json] JSON & ECMA
Thread-Index: Ac4imRFYlu/4nsEjQdGYBy/SpbLiCwEsK+Ow
Message-ID: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D1E88488177@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com>
References: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D1E883516CD@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com> <6F8EC872-CF09-428A-A675-E96462DD5972@vpnc.org> <CAHBU6isfWR=qP5aK0T=tH7ozFF+JjQh+rNB=m7F-5h=vK=MYPQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHBU6isfWR=qP5aK0T=tH7ozFF+JjQh+rNB=m7F-5h=vK=MYPQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D1E88488177nambxv01acorp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] JSON & ECMA
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion related to JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\)." <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: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 20:57:10 -0000

How about "The working group should work to ensure that the JSON specification produced will be suitable for being the normative definition of JSON referenced from specifications from other standards groups, including W3C and ECMA TC39."

That doesn't require any direct coordination, but makes it clear that the intent is that other specs normatively reference this one.

As for BCP 70 / RFC 3470 update, I don't mind making it a second work item but if it is in the charter, it lets an update to 3470 be a working-group draft.

> > I'd like to work on updating http://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp70 , RFC 3470, "Guidelines for the Use of Extensible Markup Language (XML) within IETF Protocols" to cover JSON and also the considerations of XML vs. JSON,  as a working group item.
>
> Are you saying you want that as an initial charter item, or to be considered in the second step after we finish 4627bis? My preference is the latter, so that we can focus on the one main topic. Also, such an update would naturally parallel work on a JSON schema / description document.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email