Re: [Json] REMINDER - WGLC Ends 2013-10-11

Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> Sat, 12 October 2013 02:06 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 F041821E8140 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 19:06:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.864
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.864 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.112, 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 VRDP7dUdDI8j for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 19:06:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vb0-f42.google.com (mail-vb0-f42.google.com [209.85.212.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6274C21E813E for <json@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 19:06:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vb0-f42.google.com with SMTP id e12so3416938vbg.1 for <json@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 19:06:13 -0700 (PDT)
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=DqXIBRGd9WsPmO/eLrA9W2l8v3UbtXBmpTpolCvRvYc=; b=lFSEiYPQ19TUbagFzCqqQJYEjOLWlwVGT+LwxSXRcei6YoGT8CcmFUip7lBGQNxMo2 t7YBL53+8f+iJw+f5quvUds5eziiBtFpm0OAv4z+annrouaVSpVk7/VYCDsz5Zujh9zL /SP9J4VF1/P6qa51kFoyanzPlNJjH2Aayk3SfPTLDOEEi8gdfPqPvkkakCOAgOOwrGAd wIbVbVb6W1QQszI1ATg13aH5sYTzNRzDiD2qJOJQLlV3DZEuHJVPOYriJk1U6pggiOVl hppZo9bvrbzFhBJbj1H3+yn0hwy9FHUveNE2w76QXQ/6cbE5Oh4tGGJOxwt1fFqb1N0r CkOg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl/VAUwPVYo6uV3vFrMRf2kvNiGXSt1+7odoQWfKqaMvMQqcrscml+Zl48U+4sPPhrAmpJn
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.52.69.204 with SMTP id g12mr19956878vdu.26.1381543573474; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 19:06:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.174.197 with HTTP; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 19:06:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [24.84.235.32]
In-Reply-To: <CAK3OfOgt_B0VNxEuYrpDM8b32KJuFpC1eirkJCxMPEssKPNUqw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BF7E36B9C495A6468E8EC573603ED9411EF4E2DB@xmb-aln-x11.cisco.com> <BF7E36B9C495A6468E8EC573603ED9411EF549AB@xmb-aln-x11.cisco.com> <CB150F21-4BE6-4DE6-BCA2-1DBDDCC3F86E@wirfs-brock.com> <CAHBU6itwE91wCsbQboGsunYammY3KK-jFpd24pPuzAQNFfMTsA@mail.gmail.com> <CAK3OfOgt_B0VNxEuYrpDM8b32KJuFpC1eirkJCxMPEssKPNUqw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 19:06:13 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHBU6iupZK2B-HcGjWG8oDQ0iFLre2=Q6cGGy=rZ5E1H+NEk0Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
To: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf307c9faaf0820704e881ad98
Cc: Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen@wirfs-brock.com>, Matt Miller <mamille2@cisco.com>, JSON WG <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] REMINDER - WGLC Ends 2013-10-11
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: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 02:06:28 -0000

On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>wrote;wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 6:07 PM, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> wrote:
> > Since the normative definitions are isomorphic, there is no benefit to
> the
>
> Ignoring the difference regarding top-level values, has this been shown?
>

Yes, there is a huge body of empirical evidence, namely the vast number of
JSON implementations which are observed to interoperate successfully.

If they are isomorphic, which ABNF definition is better, for any value
> of "better" (subjective, objective under any specific criteria)?
>

I can’t think of any serious arguments in favor of the proposition that any
is qualitatively better than the others.  -T


>
> Nico
> --
>