IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Json] Allow any JSON value at the top level

R S <sayrer@gmail.com> Tue, 11 June 2013 00:18 UTC

Return-Path: <sayrer@gmail.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 3C03621F9928 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Jun 2013 17:18:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 ACpw9-p1mToK for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Jun 2013 17:18:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-x22d.google.com (mail-wg0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::22d]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20D2521F9926 for <json@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Jun 2013 17:18:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wg0-f45.google.com with SMTP id j13so56328wgh.0 for <json@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Jun 2013 17:18:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=QEvKJMFX2/Of+OnDHj5PtDOUk0AQ2128KVr8PC8/Ngs=; b=R43Q33l27eH4cihNknqE4VQmv8G36faFXz8UToHlft5+DUebebMv8FGOXOd4icXpbF kFYPkbifN/wkX+XSHYoHpacX8DYrOfaT2Worrogv1mxBygVlqWBMmXAbVxbQDE5qS/nr QQIztZp0L7ifQcySqEqZa/VTSM+O/6uHmHHUjsPFlob4mqHZF8F7ytSksDKl8fyBrO9r LlY8PgSRDgZ0ocDBYZQNXrQ75TJMAQ4RYqLVIDn4cZdq49m3foJjfNFqHF3Z8XDaa6bR oD5ws3HSzMaK1/G5EI3AM7BO53AaEVM0hNODlkLEwAQvfDgYRWX1puwZW+SK0gtboAWW KxcQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.58.239 with SMTP id u15mr6811992wjq.87.1370909884259; Mon, 10 Jun 2013 17:18:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.83.35 with HTTP; Mon, 10 Jun 2013 17:18:04 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <B14769F1-5C71-4F1D-8E20-513271876620@vpnc.org>
References: <A723FC6ECC552A4D8C8249D9E07425A70FC33B5B@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com> <51b23e6d.6196420a.0b15.4245SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <CAChr6SwrveU=fesF8VidDYWzeYMu2c1+=38+__BqHArxTiW5mg@mail.gmail.com> <51b4dbbe.64da440a.1fc2.6dd2SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <CAChr6Sx_obmG+=sY100ySBLmevN0VJ_0Z9TjYGxcXKOx+UtnJA@mail.gmail.com> <51b4ec44.ea05420a.7c73.ffffa487SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <CAChr6SxiZ2Yz6SiozQZpuYoGKSzWnUux6PukyWDkcvKsVyyRbQ@mail.gmail.com> <51b507b1.c686e00a.3a7e.ffffa0adSMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <CAO1wJ5R2H27qh-DWG5B8CzutkTFWxn-h+Qi1jiet23axxmvLyA@mail.gmail.com> <20130610201746.GC1057@mercury.ccil.org> <CAO1wJ5Q9mhspheU3h4NRx9x5LOz9yOgJBXhwPWBOVw-w71ncTQ@mail.gmail.com> <3CE20E15-8F9E-4727-BBE7-FBB06F7CAC24@jorgechamorro.com> <CAGrxA24T8m9oHmuVE8n+YG6ATr3sTTByet7Te8VyAmypD11p6w@mail.gmail.com> <B14769F1-5C71-4F1D-8E20-513271876620@vpnc.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 17:18:04 -0700
Message-ID: <CAChr6SzXUNTA+bMtFAwWh+Z2APoiSuAt7DQzx+RK57+vznN1-w@mail.gmail.com>
From: R S <sayrer@gmail.com>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7ba97b94aba4f604ded5d41a"
Cc: "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] Allow any JSON value at the top level
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: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 00:18:06 -0000

On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 4:56 PM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote:

> <no hat>
>
> Although I earlier supported the idea of any JSON value at the top level,
> a bunch of recent posts show that this is probably a significant revision
> to the RFC because it would take a lot of extra requirements as well. I now
> support leaving the requirement in the -bis document as it is now.
>

Leaving the document as-is does not seem to be an option per the charter:

"It is acknowledged that there are differences between RFC 4627 and the
ECMAScript specification in the rules for parsing JSON. Any changes that
break compatibility with existing implementations of either RFC 4627 or
the ECMAScript specification will need to have very strong justification
and broad support. All differences between RFC 4627 or the current
ECMAScript specification will be documented in the new RFC."



> If we want to add a new MIME type for "any JSON item", that is clearly a
> significant addition to the RFC. It can wait until the WG recharters.


A new media type would solve any problem that I'm aware of.

- Rob

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email