IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Json] I-JSON Tpic #2: Top-Level

"Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Wed, 21 May 2014 08:33 UTC

Return-Path: <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
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 5A9B21A029E for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 May 2014 01:33:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.442
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.442 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] autolearn=no
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 VGgv38mR0SPy for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 May 2014 01:33:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from scintmta01-14.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (scintmta.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp [133.2.253.64]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 201BC1A0214 for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 May 2014 01:33:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from scmeg01-14.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (scmse.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp [133.2.253.15]) by scintmta01-14.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F60732E54A; Wed, 21 May 2014 17:33:05 +0900 (JST)
Received: from itmail2.it.aoyama.ac.jp (unknown [133.2.206.134]) by scmeg01-14.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp with smtp id 103c_2113_c91cd548_82fa_443e_9e04_ff0bfe1f4a24; Wed, 21 May 2014 17:33:04 +0900
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (unknown [133.2.210.1]) by itmail2.it.aoyama.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2598BF537; Wed, 21 May 2014 17:33:04 +0900 (JST)
Message-ID: <537C64B3.1010502@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 17:32:51 +0900
From: "\"Martin J. Dürst\"" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Organization: Aoyama Gakuin University
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, IETF JSON WG <json@ietf.org>
References: <535EB119.4000908@cisco.com> <CAHBU6itycQmqzAuxWyrFZ_v=fHdenm2csyAqtUGGu+vteh6=yQ@mail.gmail.com> <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E1154581E82F@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com> <CAHBU6iuqosV91W6CJyow_eaKdCNm_VOairJysuLS8mrWV+HM9g@mail.gmail.com> <ABB2BA00-6A21-4710-A1F5-49D4FB469E8F@vpnc.org> <CAK3OfOig8y5KpYZ86KrMPxrJOYC_hLBew_nmyneHCC2mXX+tag@mail.gmail.com> <537BB89E.2040305@cisco.com> <3BF9B252-3CCD-4BC3-9F30-8634B483FAEE@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <3BF9B252-3CCD-4BC3-9F30-8634B483FAEE@tzi.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/UEL3IFKZXfdMBk-ED7-meeab0QU
Subject: Re: [Json] I-JSON Tpic #2: Top-Level
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: Wed, 21 May 2014 08:33:09 -0000

On 2014/05/21 15:16, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> Restricting I-JSON to top-level objects only, would immediately make JCard (RFC 7095) and JCal (draft-ietf-jcardcal-jcal-10.txt, in RFC-EDITOR state) non-I-JSON.

I wanted to write that I didn't see that much of a need for single 
strings, numbers,... in any serious format for data interchange.

As the above seems to offer good counterexamples to my understanding, I 
went to look at the specs. I only skimmed them for the examples, but I 
didn't find a single one that would have consisted of just a string or 
just a number. If there are such examples in these specs, or if there 
are no examples but the spec allows them nonetheless, could you please 
point out where (and more interestingly, for what) they are allowed?

Regards,   Martin.

> Since these are significant IETF efforts, that would make me unhappy.
>
> (I don’t have an opinion yet whether I-JSON should restrict itself to RFC 4627 JSON, i.e. objects and arrays, or should embrace the ECMA-404/RFC 7159 extension.  Both sides have quite good arguments for them.)
>
> Grüße, Carsten
>
> _______________________________________________
> json mailing list
> json@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email