IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Json] Response to Statement from Ecma International TC39

R S <sayrer@gmail.com> Mon, 09 December 2013 03:26 UTC

Return-Path: <sayrer@gmail.com>
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 EA3971AE1B3 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Dec 2013 19:26:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 pa688pnjsCrD for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Dec 2013 19:26:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qe0-x236.google.com (mail-qe0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c02::236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A72901A1EF9 for <json@ietf.org>; Sun, 8 Dec 2013 19:26:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qe0-f54.google.com with SMTP id cy11so2357575qeb.13 for <json@ietf.org>; Sun, 08 Dec 2013 19:26:36 -0800 (PST)
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=k8sTJM1UCyVqHJHOG9jCQN9151I4affCqiXkomKMesw=; b=oYsOe5r8oB6dDY2zWTsdxIbSgB19XwkKZM4vNlwt7MjNKDXoJQrjsi9P/43MOkHvpw guMoTrJpEXrKVad6RZbEW8jnj7BWZmvGX6TH896uwaTXUdNtgi/rMKAADywPxZHDO58E C7DXuXlxVUaI5jNl1twRtmL9Kwzya/zdgwuMUM24WwL21/pBcfDLY7xVI85L38FMJYh9 BrfsSDRIVjdMrEzQxjks9TuxBrE7hRyNh+KXeMm+LnM5N+qG3ySRd3WAR+lYreok0qth VZ0asyX6SQLZzH/tWo92izszcLXlR5J1l+ZjA3ca0iFBrC55TqoKF1Pk+laTud2L7+gU 7G5w==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.224.51.196 with SMTP id e4mr29983104qag.16.1386559596888; Sun, 08 Dec 2013 19:26:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.140.101.40 with HTTP; Sun, 8 Dec 2013 19:26:36 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAHBU6it_Yek95Jr+w86LDNQTZsdAaYanduKgPqMZx-vjnF8=wQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C7707CE2-C43E-4171-AE96-9FAFDCE53317@cisco.com> <CAHBU6iva2H-ovjmfA7=7j2KxUuXAMjhCb8fcMgKxq6hk+A9BtQ@mail.gmail.com> <5D573C1A-BC67-4E00-9EFC-B57172CB0478@mnot.net> <E456E2BC-477A-4306-B676-8BDD52637CFB@vpnc.org> <F87F544A-DD2E-46A4-B682-E84E86ADB74B@mnot.net> <CAChr6Szz-N3KBWo6xTg21gcAH2TV9VM1rDex0OXWPTaOnMY59g@mail.gmail.com> <CAHBU6it_Yek95Jr+w86LDNQTZsdAaYanduKgPqMZx-vjnF8=wQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2013 19:26:36 -0800
Message-ID: <CAChr6SxC_DH8tSXk9wy2R=PmnMeoax-DwegMc+_8dyJcWrMEpQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: R S <sayrer@gmail.com>
To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c29e503b884a04ed11905c"
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, JSON WG <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] Response to Statement from Ecma International TC39
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: Mon, 09 Dec 2013 03:26:44 -0000

I see a few of the more vocal members of this WG emailing with TC39 there.
The fact of the matter is that you'll need to use the equivalent of a
LinkedHashMap (Java/Dart) to get good interoperability with JSON texts that
include duplicate names (JavaScript object implmentations are largely
compatible with this--I think V8 behaves differently with keys that could
pass as array indices). I happen to agree with Crockford[0] that this was a
mistake, but we're left with it.

In this thread, one of the chairs said "The topic of 'should we just refer
to Ecma' came up multiple times before Ecma produced ECMA-404, and each
time the consensus was to keep our definition." That is an unsatisfactory
answer, because ECMA-404 is a materially different specification than
ECMA-262, edition 5.1.

- Rob

[0] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/json/current/msg00351.html




On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> wrote:

> Um, yes. Repeatedly.  Current hot thread is the one with “W3C TAG” in the
> title.
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 6:58 PM, R S <sayrer@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Has the WG debated a normative reference to ECMA-404?
>>
>> It is worth considering.
>>
>> - Rob
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 6:54 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 8 Dec 2013, at 3:10 am, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> Why don’t we ask what their intent is for the future of 404, rather
>>> than tell them what we deem it might be?
>>> >
>>> > Because their intent might change over time, just as anyone's might.
>>> Intention are not promises, nor should they be. If Ecma had looked at our
>>> intent for rfc4627bis nine months ago and thought they were promises, they
>>> would be really pissed at us. SDOs doing technical work are often surprised
>>> by what they find when a lot of different eyes focus on the topic, as you
>>> are well aware from your current experience in httpbis.
>>>
>>> I don’t disagree with your logic, but fully applied, we couldn’t
>>> reference our own publications, much less external ones.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> json mailing list
>>> json@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> json mailing list
>> json@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>>
>>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email