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

R S <sayrer@gmail.com> Sat, 12 October 2013 02:07 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 9BA1821E813F for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 19:07:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.233
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.233 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.366, 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 xKpQoJ0rSRoF for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 19:07:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qc0-x232.google.com (mail-qc0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8247D21E8119 for <json@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 19:07:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qc0-f178.google.com with SMTP id r5so3523846qcx.37 for <json@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 19:07:44 -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=a7qZivHNoxzb2p2MigWBMhOf59e/dbWJUb+1zGMTaRI=; b=R2Trtqa/FXLbMtOOhka8eyKGB7j8nli9qqnz6o6ueJpq7x65eSQ1ipZW6qM3Q++Bjz SNALMqgZFoMm3PsVEZf5M7f1UWLIwH80UBqQFNsQuUcZ/6i5ram5tmFXVMg+6cTLMqZO YF6n1Q5M87faTKOqVc0dvcI6RKCBG3u2S4Tx2idQQKFjKiq5ZhDAKOyO94/AWqRKfq8e 5LajN9meSdpn6X0g92diu/EmQkOw09UMoOTOu81M2+m9utHJD6SqutRG29ZQExSR6OJE qx/QTfLSHBNg59WfAa6wxZ7YhsKl3JjNEs8kbggRHWRY6AMrWDA0wMC2xmiyW1dtA0t2 A+1g==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.49.1.230 with SMTP id 6mr11951111qep.48.1381543663931; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 19:07:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.140.39.84 with HTTP; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 19:07:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.140.39.84 with HTTP; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 19:07:43 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAHBU6it1tdwuufM5nvUx7Aufq4wcR8BC+dN+tpffykOB_=yhHg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <lkf1yx0p824ir3w7kxdttde9.1381533395741@email.android.com> <CAHBU6iuu=2w50FxUCW1bCwhdFdv62JFk24czUE9E05eLzFmKHQ@mail.gmail.com> <713h595olqghb5hq13r3dqh7ss05l3p5ps@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de> <CAHBU6it1tdwuufM5nvUx7Aufq4wcR8BC+dN+tpffykOB_=yhHg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 19:07:43 -0700
Message-ID: <CAChr6SwgB70nxGH5wQbjBVuiSHg45Nu0UyU2dR=2GUavr9u0YQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: R S <sayrer@gmail.com>
To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b6783aa54b40304e881b397
Cc: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, 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 02:07:45 -0000

I think Tim is correct.

- Rob
 On Oct 11, 2013 7:04 PM, "Tim Bray" <tbray@textuality.com> wrote:

> Once again, check out
> https://www.tbray.org/tmp/draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-06.html#rfc.section.1.2- it is perfectly clear that the syntax is the same in all specs, with the
> difference that the ECMA flavor has not required JSON texts to be arrays or
> objects at the top level.  This difference has existed for a long time,
> JSON has managed to prosper in the face of it, and there is no good reason
> to do anything about it aside from noting its existence. -T
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>wrote;wrote:
>
>> * Tim Bray wrote:
>> >Have a look at the “Specifications of JSON” section.  I think it makes it
>> >clear that there are multiple specifications of JSON, they are all in
>> >perfect harmony as to the syntactic elements of the language, and thus it
>> >would be counterproductive to suggest that the reader needs to go
>> anywhere
>> >else to make sure they have it right.
>> >
>> >This is one of the nice things about working with JSON, there is no
>> >disagreement as to the syntax of the language.
>>
>> The W3C specification for XML 1.0 says you cannot put a string like `1`
>> at the top level of a document, you have to wrap it inside an element.
>>
>> So, if ECMA published their own specification for XML 1.0 that says the
>> string `1` is a well-formed XML 1.0 document, and the W3C specification
>> keeps saying the opposite, would you really describe that as perfect
>> harmony with no disagreement about what constitutes a well-formed XML
>> 1.0 document? What would your XML 1.0 processor do when asked to parse
>> the string `1` in this scenario?
>>
>> Under ECMA-404 the string `1` is "JSON text" but it is not "JSON text"
>> under the definition in RFC 4627 or draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-06. How
>> is that different from the scenario above? I can't imagine you saying
>> "This is one of the nice things about working with XML, some parsers
>> accept the string `1` correctly as well-formed XML document, while some
>> other processors correctly treat it as non-conforming garbage" but that
>> is the situation we have with JSON.
>> --
>> Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
>> Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
>> 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> json mailing list
> json@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>
>