Re: [Json] Call for WG Consensus to Adopt I-JSON as a WG Item in the Charter

[Bjoern Hoehrmann <[e-mail]>]

* John Cowan wrote:
>Bjoern Hoehrmann scripsit:
>
>> No, not without changing the nature of the document considerably. These
>> are just best practises and not a separate format with its own name.
>
>The idea, I think, is that if the receiver sees the new name it can make
>more stringent assumptions about the input.  Indeed, given a name, certain
>receivers can say they will *only* accept I-JSON.  It is analogous to the
>"strict" declaration in JavaScript (or Perl, for that matter).

For human-readable documentation purposes it is entirely sufficient to
say "follows RFC XXXX conventions" and implementations can just assume
the conventions are being followed until they detect otherwise (which
"I-JSON" implementations are required to do as currently proposed).
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[e-mail] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: [phone] · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/