[Json] Re: Old Errata

[Rob Sayre <[e-mail]>]

I went through them. I mostly agree with Tim's dispositions.

5218 - reject because overtaken by events (but was correct at the time)
5853 - reject, it's an editorial preference
7383 - not sure (conflicts with 7650)
7600 - accept
7603 - accept (this is already referenced in RFC9839)
7617 - reject
7650 - not sure (conflicts with 7383)
7673 - reject
5210 - accept
5318 - accept

thanks,
Rob

On Mon, May 25, 2026 at 5:35 PM Rob Sayre <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Yeah,
>
> I'll go through and wing them too. I think most of them are wrong. Bray
> and Crockford are the authorities, but I have read this one in five
> different versions. I'll offer my feedback.
>
> thanks,
> Rob
>
>
> On Mon, May 25, 2026 at 5:07 PM Tim Bray <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> That's funny. -T
>>
>> On Mon, May 25, 2026, 1:50 p.m. Rob Sayre <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> Here it is:
>>>
>>> https://v8.dev/features/subsume-json
>>>
>>> Sorry to be a knower of annoying things,
>>> Rob
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, May 25, 2026 at 1:44 PM Rob Sayre <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, May 25, 2026 at 1:21 PM Tim Bray <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On May 25, 2026 at 2:51:27 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke=
>>>>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi there.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> While I worked on (more) errata display support in rfcxml.xslt, I
>>>>>> noticed that the number of unproccessed errata for RFC 8259 is
>>>>>> sub-optimal (10 out of 15):
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://errata.rfc-editor.org/search/?rfc_number=8259
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wouldn't it be good to go through them one-by-one?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> My opinions:
>>>>>
>>>>> 5218 accept
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Some of them we have to go through and evaluate again. I think this one
>>>> was correct when filed, but they actually changed JavaScript in the
>>>> meantime, so now the JSON spec is correct.
>>>>
>>>> Let's close this one as overtaken by other events.
>>>>
>>>> thanks,
>>>> Rob
>>>>
>>>>