Re: [Json] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7158 (3907)

["Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <[e-mail]>]

Paul: ECMA's version of JSON has allowed anything at the top level for
quite a while.  The WG explicitly decided that having the two specs in
sync was more important to us than the backward-compatility issue, which
we documented.  This isn't a "mistake" in the sense that we didn't know it
was happening - it was the consensus of the people who were participating.


On 3/4/14 8:12 PM, "Paul E. Jones" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>Tim,
> 
>Yeah, I saw that.  However, I still think this only opens the door for
>future implementations to produce things that do not work reliably.  As
>Marc Lehmann rightfully pointed out (and, BTW, his Errata text appears to
>have disappeared), a serializer that
> is requested to serialize a series of integers like 1 and 999 might
>produce 1999.  Reading that back in, the single value 1999 would be read.
> Likewise, a serializer might produce truefalse as output, but then fail
>when one tries to read that back.  One might
> argue to start all serialization with whitespace to avoid having values
>serialized adjacent to each other.  That would work, but unfortunate.
> 
>Maybe I missed it, but I could not see _why_ the change was made to this
>production.  What was wrong with allowing only an object or array?
> 
>Looking at some of the messages hanging off of the link Björn provided, I
>can see people are worried, too, about the BOM.  The previous text made
>it very clear how to determine whether the text is UTF-16LE or UTF-16BE,
>for example.  That text seems to
> have disappeared.  Is there a reason?  I think the same approach spelled
>out in Section 3 of RFC 4627 would still work, no?
> 
>Paul
> 
>------ Original Message ------
>From: "Tim Bray" <[e-mail]>
>To: "Paul E. Jones" <[e-mail]>
>Cc: "Bjoern Hoehrmann" <[e-mail]>; "RFC Errata System"
><[e-mail]>; "Pete Resnick" <[e-mail]>;
> "Paul Hoffman" <[e-mail]>; "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>;
>"Matthew Miller" <[e-mail]>; "Barry Leiba"
><[e-mail]>;
>[e-mail]
>Sent: 3/4/2014 12:27:51 PM
>Subject: Re: [Json] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7158 (3907)
> 
>
>On this issue, also please read the interoperability note in the
>paragraph before the new production.
>
>
>On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 6:17 AM, Paul E. Jones
><[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>I've not been following the list closely, as I thought this was more of
>an editorial exercise than anything else.  This is definitely more than
>editorial.  This could definitely break things and the commenter is right
>that there are instances where there could
> be misinterpretation.
>
>Why was it decided to change this:
>
>    JSON-text = object / array
>
>to
>
>    JSON-text = ws value ws
>
>Was there some misunderstanding of what 4627 said?
>
>Paul
>
>------ Original Message ------
>From: "Bjoern Hoehrmann" <[e-mail]>
>To: "RFC Errata System" <[e-mail]>
>Cc: [e-mail];
>[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
>[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
>[e-mail];
>[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>Sent: 3/2/2014 4:31:07 PM
>Subject: Re: [Json] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7158 (3907)
>
>
>
>* RFC Errata System wrote:
>
>Since RFC7158 breaks compatibility with the specifications, this should be
>duly noted.
>
>
>
>It is in Appendix A., "Changes from RFC 4627":
>
>   o Changed the definition of "JSON text" so that it can be any JSON
>      value, removing the constraint that it be an object or array.
>
>Failing to note this in the Introduction is not ideal, but the errata
>system is not a good place to record that (holding it for document up-
>date probably does not make sense, if and when the document does get
>updated, this particular issue will not require prominent notice).
>--
>Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[e-mail] ·
>http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de <http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de/>
>Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon:
>+49(0)160/4415681 <tel:%2B49%280%29160%2F4415681> ·
>http://www.bjoernsworld.de <http://www.bjoernsworld.de/>
>25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 ·
>http://www.websitedev.de/ <http://www.websitedev.de/>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>json mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Joe Hildebrand