IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Json] Differences between RFC 4627 or the current ECMAScript specification

"Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Thu, 03 October 2013 01:40 UTC

Return-Path: <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
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 CAC1121F9F1B for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 18:40:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -99.79
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.79 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 yecBvLNtyKXv for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 18:40:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from scintmta01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (scintmta01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp [133.2.253.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71BFC21F9E6B for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 18:40:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from scmse02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp ([133.2.253.231]) by scintmta01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (secret/secret) with SMTP id r931eIIP012842; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 10:40:18 +0900
Received: from (unknown [133.2.206.134]) by scmse02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp with smtp id 0916_234e_c246c87e_2bcc_11e3_a21c_001e6722eec2; Thu, 03 Oct 2013 10:40:17 +0900
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (unknown [133.2.210.1]) by itmail2.it.aoyama.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9630BF4E2; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 10:40:17 +0900 (JST)
Message-ID: <524CCAF3.7090209@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2013 10:40:03 +0900
From: "\"Martin J. Dürst\"" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Organization: Aoyama Gakuin University
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100722 Eudora/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
References: <BF7E36B9C495A6468E8EC573603ED9411EF1BB0B@xmb-aln-x11.cisco.com> <CAChr6SyznBktmOLpT-EiZ5Nm_0jZ16M0tOo4aZ_jhSDb=HHDqg@mail.gmail.com> <23C96FBA-3419-4C97-A075-462F7443013A@vpnc.org> <CAHBU6is2WzCNCwa0PYMM1Hr3Lij0GxWkVtVUan9=JPbvv0YCZg@mail.gmail.com> <CAChr6Sw72kxm8qJiDu=XMnARCttQPc5GNRQaXz4Xw9y+6-3=Mg@mail.gmail.com> <421F79DF-0B88-4E24-8666-189228E6E189@vpnc.org> <CAChr6SyEBkhbB5Mrr1AAqevzouvSa7Cx+qtvBx=HPCdgAiQjOg@mail.gmail.com> <20131002204435.GG30371@mercury.ccil.org> <CAHBU6ito+g2C-FkMC38kk3HQSgymAxNAyDof6O7TRvSHdNVsYg@mail.gmail.com> <E24EF4EF-7FB4-4D00-94AA-1666CB597A58@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <E24EF4EF-7FB4-4D00-94AA-1666CB597A58@tzi.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>, JSON WG <json@ietf.org>, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, R S <sayrer@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Json] Differences between RFC 4627 or the current ECMAScript specification
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, 03 Oct 2013 01:40:52 -0000

On 2013/10/03 5:49, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> On Oct 2, 2013, at 22:47, Tim Bray<tbray@textuality.com>  wrote:
>
>> Does it matter in the slightest to anyone on the planet what it was derived from?
>
> It matters to those who want to understand the confusion between JSON and JavaScript object notation.

And will help even those who don't necessarily want to understand this 
confusion, but are confused anyhow.

In other words, such explanations help because they tend to spread, via 
books, web pages, and so on. Having the correctly worded explanation in 
the original document improves this spread.

Regards,   Martin.

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status