IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Json] Proposal: the minimal edit

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Tue, 25 June 2013 02:19 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
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 2618421E804C for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Jun 2013 19:19:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.517
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.517 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.082, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 OP4rGi5qA6rJ for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Jun 2013 19:19:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAD6711E80F1 for <json@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Jun 2013 19:19:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.20.30.90] (50-0-66-165.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.0.66.165]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r5P2JK3d096697 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for <json@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Jun 2013 19:19:21 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\))
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <5FF84B9F-F637-48AC-921F-173F3370EF17@vpnc.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 19:19:20 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <6DE2EFD8-4FE4-410E-AB0C-B0B34F313FEB@vpnc.org>
References: <CAChr6SyN4Z3Hh8OFGHkK+AJN0+S09wMfjeobZ51GjKNL+GhPsw@mail.gmail.com> <CAHBU6ivhoUM9cfUnc1YfnyDdQnWQ=Mj10cSoYn0qouMQ0F94XA@mail.gmail.com> <CAChr6SyQDjik_BTojXdw3G7_B=W5iZXksuM15VYwGJqr8WHdhw@mail.gmail.com> <CAChr6SwbFfR5UQuU2ceJhDeGAhv5Zy0dKA3szzO_KGfjA7fx5Q@mail.gmail.com> <B4858680-D319-4603-A1C3-D6A84195B300@vpnc.org> <CAHBU6ivUL6YvtMiajQwfftNgrRJk4dqiFs1yowoxfLi5wh2_hQ@mail.gmail.com> <20130624233521.GF19899@mercury.ccil.org> <3D442E5F-F9ED-47DB-9E1D-29ACA8588717@vpnc.org> <20130625011904.GJ19899@mercury.ccil.org> <5FF84B9F-F637-48AC-921F-173F3370EF17@vpnc.org>
To: "json@ietf.org WG" <json@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508)
Subject: Re: [Json] Proposal: the minimal edit
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: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 02:19:23 -0000

Asked a different way:

Given a section titled "Differences from the JSON Definition in ECMAScript" that begins "The following lists the known major differences between this document and the definition of JSON in Section 15.12 of [ECMA]", what would you say about the perceived difference in the code points that ECMAScript implementations can generate and consume relative to RFC 4627?

--Paul Hoffman

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