Re: [Json] Kicking Off JSONbis

["Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <[e-mail]>]

You are echoing my sentiments.

I vote for something along the lines of option 2.  (I would really like to
vote for 3, but standards harmony does indeed have some benefit.)

The other option would be to make all the language definition stuff in
RFC7159bis informative and point to ECMA404 for the normative definition.
However, this option has the added problem that the language definition in
ECMA404 depends on an undefined formalism.

peter


On 10/18/2015 11:34 AM, 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 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.”
> 
> 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.
> 
> 3. Conclude that this effort has no observable benefit to the community
> implementing JSON on the Internet and abandon the RFC7159bis project.
> 
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 9:10 AM, Barry Leiba <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>     >>> Sure, but isn’t a consensus call on the substantive change to the spec in
>     >>> order?
>     >>
>     >> That could be done by posting an I-D to make the proposal, and have
>     >> the working group review it and comment on it.  Right now, there's
>     >> just a "here's what we plan to do", and there've been a few comments
>     >> about that.  Specific text to review might help, no?
>     >
>     > RFC 7159 has the following verified errata:
>     >
>     > * https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7159&eid=3915
>     > * https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7159&eid=4264
>     > * https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7159&eid=4336
>     >
>     > I suggest at the least an I-D be published that applies these.
> 
>     That works for me.
> 
>     As to the other, specific text proposed on the list will give people
>     something to discuss.
> 
>     Barry
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> - Tim Bray (If you’d like to send me a private message, see
> https://keybase.io/timbray)
>