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

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Sat, 12 October 2013 00:16 UTC

Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.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 D22D511E81A8 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 17:16:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.145
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.145 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.168, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622]
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 yGWvYE5Xvnka for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 17:16:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a105.g.dreamhost.com (caiajhbdcaib.dreamhost.com [208.97.132.81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF41A11E81A1 for <json@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 17:16:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a105.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a105.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F29D2005D900 for <json@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 17:16:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h= mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from :to:cc:content-type; s=cryptonector.com; bh=0XNfMhHB/H75uZXvb4U4 3xrO3YU=; b=mHHiI6ldPtOF1V1fx2FJRiD/RzVo6ZeltGVhYQaBEh9xhsJpjxAW RvN/6awxj4rpq5EnXDyv4FNGaRnPcbRZVpA17/iOEBTi7dJCJt941u0nmaiI3Iyk FJUKPTPGFgRxd4iWlJ1uRlY4frSO9qOgmbilFWlw0n91Ykso7OMkOT8=
Received: from mail-we0-f177.google.com (mail-we0-f177.google.com [74.125.82.177]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by homiemail-a105.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3A6302005D904 for <json@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 17:16:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-we0-f177.google.com with SMTP id x55so4873435wes.36 for <json@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 17:16:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=S612zZs8JULY9y+0l5hny6gO4EJjToR5fx0y+ePanKc=; b=ie4jVnOS2h+lyj3H3kPzhXnPUPly7tIJK1tKUL2luR814ykOO0VZjkNyXiDbhS4dP+ xg7bBDoGF8KNBYPb8QQDPltHO40wQmV2IdlwU556yJto883Tu0j0uNY0lRPNzzf+r+NT NRvmiPRRXoluf4E8BcJP3kJQRcox+ubpjc2i0BlZdPk0USHiefGw6KHzqAyimKgs0izS fUxtKUU/EbOidnvkXL/m+8AktQ0sQcZp4Kfy8UHmBA+9ZYPgO5mC/3XYYuBap6EWY+nn fwROBTd8s6hN37x1/dmrtetQr0FQ2y6gm2kkRTP4mKkZrY3411TtUtdXkLuReXUlp/3p cT5A==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.182.82 with SMTP id ec18mr5175975wic.13.1381537004429; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 17:16:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.165.5 with HTTP; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 17:16:44 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAHBU6itwE91wCsbQboGsunYammY3KK-jFpd24pPuzAQNFfMTsA@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>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 19:16:44 -0500
Message-ID: <CAK3OfOgt_B0VNxEuYrpDM8b32KJuFpC1eirkJCxMPEssKPNUqw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
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 00:16:52 -0000

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?

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

Nico
--