Re: [Json] Two Documents

Paul Hoffman <> Tue, 18 June 2013 14:04 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3D9C21F949F for <>; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 07:04:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.504
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.504 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.095, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kOxtxcsuyvBK for <>; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 07:04:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AF7721F93E0 for <>; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 07:04:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r5IE4RoL083325 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 18 Jun 2013 07:04:28 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\))
From: Paul Hoffman <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 07:04:28 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <>
To: Vinny A <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508)
Cc: Douglas Crockford <>,
Subject: Re: [Json] Two Documents
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 14:04:32 -0000

On Jun 17, 2013, at 8:19 PM, Vinny A <> wrote:

> On Jun 17, 2013, at 7:14 PM, "Matt Miller (mamille2)" <> wrote:
>> In order for the WG to fully understand your proposal, we need a more definitive list of what to expect in each document.
>> As a starting point, can you describe which sections of the current RFC4627 would be in "JSON Data Interchange Format" and which would be in the JSON best practices document?  Clearly the latter will have many additions from the recent discussions, but it is less clear which portions of the current text goes into which document.
> Obviously I'm not Douglas, but I'd like to make a proposal in this department.

<grumpy hat>

Not only are you not Douglas (who made the original proposal, and thus the question was directed at him), you did not even answer Matt's request. Douglas proposed two documents but did not clearly state what might be removed from the current WG draft; knowing that will help the WG decide whether or not to adopt Douglas' proposal. Your list of ideas for the new document is fine, but is out of scope for the current charter *unless* you are proposing to remove sections from the current WG draft.

--Paul Hoffman