Re: [Json] Two Documents

Mark Miller <erights@gmail.com> Thu, 13 June 2013 16:21 UTC

Return-Path: <erights@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 4A41C21F9944 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 09:21:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.932
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.932 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_HTML_USL_OBFU=1.666]
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 m6g1q8AH5K9I for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 09:21:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vc0-f172.google.com (mail-vc0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CDCA21F946C for <json@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 09:21:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vc0-f172.google.com with SMTP id ib11so7307301vcb.17 for <json@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 09:21:46 -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=AE5NjfGiDP2X55FHi5AXLxIJXWSYhgAAFakG5CFbHsg=; b=brxWeB+ZKtk9m9PWPyf1NFH0KaPEmzY7lrOJFzpGy0BAOMILVauPyHEPE92Lwz4nEb GBsgJYU45chh0dBwFjdzUy4npv42twfIOhYAttfsHqxGu8zRWteszk8HiNBFJvtYrmvd FvNgmJHnAAc0ZkoUhGvvDVdZwAZ6OyEHLJ1Ly9Cqzo1gn4NbDLV7WzXJjnIkUbZT2N3o owg+2bn1KujjjsyqzUhiOpUkZDIM6+sd0e+VA4ZqAFzd/v/AcCrnZ/RskV+/PgXSR//r SYhl03eOaUVw9qqtlLBie0shOaw4LMplR2Nq/hr8BwFZ6qh2S1Siejq2A01+W7ZjsTbH xFIw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.220.123.131 with SMTP id p3mr648913vcr.69.1371140506399; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 09:21:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.52.0.202 with HTTP; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 09:21:46 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <51B9EF43.3020700@crockford.com>
References: <51B9EA49.2050604@crockford.com> <20130613155710.GB29284@mercury.ccil.org> <51B9EF43.3020700@crockford.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 09:21:46 -0700
Message-ID: <CAK5yZYjw5ADdW-7sc=NS4Je7WPtpNFX3CR+wKLOVX=pVMTnxtw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mark Miller <erights@gmail.com>
To: Douglas Crockford <douglas@crockford.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013cbb22d23bf504df0b8625
Cc: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>, "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] Two Documents
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: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 16:21:54 -0000

I support separating these documents, and directing the present activity
towards standardizing the JSON Data Interchange Format. I agree that this
focuses the activity on which IETF and ECMA need coordinate.



On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Douglas Crockford <douglas@crockford.com>wrote;wrote:

>
> On 6/13/2013 8:57 AM, John Cowan wrote:
>
>> Douglas Crockford scripsit:
>>
>>  The confusion and controversy around this work is due to a mistake
>>> that I made in RFC 4627. The purpose of the RFC, which is clearly
>>> indicated in the title, was to establish a MIME type. I also gave
>>> a description of the JSON Data Interchange Format. My mistake was
>>> in conflating the two, putting details about the MIME type into the
>>> description of the format. My intention was to add clarity. That
>>> obviously was not the result.
>>>
>> Indeed.
>>
>>  So we should be working on at least two documents, which is something
>>> we have discussed earlier. The first is The JSON Data Interchange
>>> Format, which is a simple grammar. The second is a best practices
>>> document, which recommends specific conventions of usage.
>>>
>> Fine, but the definition of the application/json media type can't be
>> exiled to a BCP.  It either has to be in a separate standards-track RFC,
>> or needs to be in the same RFC as the definition of JSON format but in a
>> different section of it.  The latter strikes me as more sensible.
>>
>>  I think it will be better for ECMA that application/json be in a
> separate document.
> ECMA does not appear to be concerned with the maintenance of MIME types.
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> json mailing list
> json@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/json<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json>
>



-- 
Text by me above is hereby placed in the public domain

  Cheers,
  --MarkM