Re: [Json] Two Documents

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:

>
> 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