Re: [Json] JSON & ECMA

Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> Sat, 16 March 2013 22:53 UTC

Return-Path: <tbray@textuality.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 A0F2521F870F for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Mar 2013 15:53:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.976
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 BzEERPSzoP9c for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Mar 2013 15:53:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lb0-f182.google.com (mail-lb0-f182.google.com [209.85.217.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A66921F8595 for <json@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 Mar 2013 15:53:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lb0-f182.google.com with SMTP id gj3so281963lbb.13 for <json@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 Mar 2013 15:53:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=6jvTqtBZWPQS+yI82KIT3vgosMZV9ZuNQN0fbHZU00A=; b=XJuJlyT0ud9dTFpHERfN8BCwt9FyMdBrPxGkBKDeio9H35uLOv32FvThXJyRUAopF2 xy5VoM9UlRMOaNnOQxOy6PNqMXaabC1ZaG4Byc7Xus7oIJ6crhyxdQxlEOTt5qjcuf80 ihDjXwGZlR7+DsCI9Vbqa9ckrghrev6wsHvII89+DK/yYigEaz8C067x2FZgcnjXnJOn xqU0pKBZFlrxatqK81xcoOk5z3liZsuzWNSHqomOUWPCe5uHjcWPnDsJSSvskYHgLVg+ hUFr3PM7iVmaIGg3aMtzFdUvYEmh2CePdcRcUW8xGhVVPQYW1sqYEX+EzyRkDTA+3D3l R3ng==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.79.34 with SMTP id g2mr64717lbx.41.1363474402334; Sat, 16 Mar 2013 15:53:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.114.37.228 with HTTP; Sat, 16 Mar 2013 15:53:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [24.114.27.164]
Received: by 10.114.37.228 with HTTP; Sat, 16 Mar 2013 15:53:22 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <6F8EC872-CF09-428A-A675-E96462DD5972@vpnc.org>
References: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D1E883516CD@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com> <6F8EC872-CF09-428A-A675-E96462DD5972@vpnc.org>
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2013 15:53:22 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHBU6isfWR=qP5aK0T=tH7ozFF+JjQh+rNB=m7F-5h=vK=MYPQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=90e6ba3095086a07f404d8129fa2
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmiyp2m5kkaUkyiLXHZH7bRdwzaEvdzkn4YDEXckRBP3be5Gr8KVSLr+VFljyh+z35JLmek
Cc: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, 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: Sat, 16 Mar 2013 22:53:24 -0000

> > I wish the charter included an explicit liaison statement about
coordinating with TC39 to insure that the new IETF spec is suitable for,
and used as normative reference from ECMAScript 6.
>
> We can't do that for the simple reason that there is no liaison
relationship between the IETF and ECMA. I have heard that the IAB is now
discussing this based on the discussion in the BoF this week.

Does the community get a chance to comment? I would argue strongly against
any relationship with ECMA given an opportunity.



>
> > I also wish the charter included an explicit liaison with both W3C and
WHATWG that made forking unlikely, because of participation in the review.
>
> Neither of those SDOs have specs that claim to define JSON, do they? If
not, why would they fork?
>
> And, also, the IETF has no liaison relationship with WHATWG.
>
> Of course, we will reach out far and wide asking for review.
>
> > 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.
>
> --Paul Hoffman
> _______________________________________________
> json mailing list
> json@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json