Re: [Json] JSON & ECMA

Paul Hoffman <> Sat, 16 March 2013 22:29 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3383F21F866F for <>; Sat, 16 Mar 2013 15:29:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.144
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.144 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FRT_ADOBE2=2.455, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KVRFzI9Ih+9F for <>; Sat, 16 Mar 2013 15:29:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E1B921F8667 for <>; Sat, 16 Mar 2013 15:29:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r2GMTkwJ002534 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sat, 16 Mar 2013 15:29:46 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\))
From: Paul Hoffman <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2013 15:29:45 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
To: Larry Masinter <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503)
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [Json] JSON & ECMA
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion related to JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\)." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2013 22:29:49 -0000

On Mar 16, 2013, at 3:20 PM, Larry Masinter <> wrote:

> I wish the charter included an explicit liaison statement about coordinating with TC39 to insure that the new IETF spec is suitable for, and used as normative reference from ECMAScript 6. 

We can't do that for the simple reason that there is no liaison relationship between the IETF and ECMA. I have heard that the IAB is now discussing this based on the discussion in the BoF this week.

> I also wish the charter included an explicit liaison with both W3C and WHATWG that made forking unlikely, because of participation in the review.

Neither of those SDOs have specs that claim to define JSON, do they? If not, why would they fork?

And, also, the IETF has no liaison relationship with WHATWG.

Of course, we will reach out far and wide asking for review. 

> I'd like to work on updating , RFC 3470, "Guidelines for the Use of Extensible Markup Language (XML) within IETF Protocols" to cover JSON and also the considerations of XML vs. JSON,  as a working group item.

Are you saying you want that as an initial charter item, or to be considered in the second step after we finish 4627bis? My preference is the latter, so that we can focus on the one main topic. Also, such an update would naturally parallel work on a JSON schema / description document.

--Paul Hoffman