Re: [Json] Kicking Off JSONbis

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

On 2015-10-18 20:34, Tim Bray wrote:
> [I'll post a 7159bis with errata by end-of-day whether I get an answer
> on the errata-wonkery or not.  Now, returning to the meat of the
> discussion.]
>
> I have really major heartburn with introducing a Normative Reference to
> ECMA404 in 7159bis.  Because language in standards documents should be
> used carefully, and “Normative Reference” has a very specific meaning,
> and that meaning clearly does not apply in this case.  However, since

Exactly.

> there is apparently a feeling that there is some benefit to the
> community in achieving “standards harmony”, let me propose three ways
> forward:
>
> 1. Include a normative reference to ECMA404, but accompany it with text
> explaining that this reference is marked normative because it is
> considered authoritative in the community of JavaScript language
> specifiers, not in the normal sense of “normative”; there is no
> necessity to read it in order too understand or implement RFC7159bis,
> nor does it specify any technology which must be present in an
> implementation that is not also described in 7159bis.”

Sounds good, but we'd probably also have to talk about what it would 
mean should both documents disagree.

> 2. Do not include a normative reference, but expand the note about
> ECMA404 in Section 1.2 to emphasize that ECMA404 may be considered
> authoritative in the community of JavaScript implementers.

Works for me as well.

> 3. Conclude that this effort has no observable benefit to the community
> implementing JSON on the Internet and abandon the RFC7159bis project.

I believe it's worthwhile to apply *other* errata and publish as full 
standard, even if we can't achieve "harmony" with ECMA404.

 > ...


Best regards, Julian