Re: [Json] Radically changing 4627bis

["Manger, James H" <[e-mail]>]

> The descriptions in ECMA 404 and 4627 and json.org and ECMA 262 and the
> -bis draft are all isomorphic as respects JSON syntax.  Except for the
> ECMA family doesn't impose the top-level array-or-object restriction.

One "Except for" is almost enough reason not to rewrite the syntax in -bis.
Particularly as 404's removing of the top-level-is-array-or-object restriction
is NOT exactly the same as using the <value> ABNF production instead
of the <JSON-text> production in -bis. <value> doesn't allow whitespace around
strings, numbers, booleans, and null, while ECMA 404 does.

To be consistent with ECMA 404, 4627bis ABNF would need to be slightly adjusted.
From:
  value = false / null / true / object / array / number / string
To:
  value = ws ( false / null / true / object / array / number / string ) ws


> Thus there would be no benefit to a reader of -bis in making them go
> anywhere else to learn the syntax because it’s the same everywhere.

Conversely there is no benefit in making every reader wonder if there are
subtle differences between the ABNF-based syntax in -bis and the
tokens+racetrack description in 404.

Including 1 example JSON value in -bis would be sufficient for readers
not to have to return to 404 to remember (or even learn) the syntax.

--
James Manger