IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Json] Two Documents

"Markus Lanthaler" <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> Thu, 13 June 2013 16:50 UTC

Return-Path: <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
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 6129921F99B7 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 09:50:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.15
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.15 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT=1.449]
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 hhg1-U-b4ABZ for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 09:50:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.21]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 310CB21F96FE for <json@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 09:50:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([10.1.76.29]) by mrigmx.server.lan (mrigmx001) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MWMYG-1UpnLp1en4-00XdLv for <json@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 18:50:23 +0200
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 13 Jun 2013 16:50:23 -0000
Received: from 84-115-182-43.dynamic.surfer.at (EHLO Vostro3500) [84.115.182.43] by mail.gmx.net (mp029) with SMTP; 13 Jun 2013 18:50:23 +0200
X-Authenticated: #419883
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19tAAIfurttwLjvA6E7ZVbfLYHfd/kuS8bZ04f/gB OIpivw+rorFKUJ
From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
To: json@ietf.org
References: <51B9EA49.2050604@crockford.com> <20130613155710.GB29284@mercury.ccil.org>
In-Reply-To: <20130613155710.GB29284@mercury.ccil.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 18:50:14 +0200
Message-ID: <00f801ce6856$165d6a20$43183e60$@lanthaler>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Ac5oTsV3cTj774IyQv+Igrlslzeq+AABu9hQ
Content-Language: de
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Subject: Re: [Json] Two Documents
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: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 16:50:35 -0000

On Thursday, June 13, 2013 5:57 PM, John Cowan wrote:
> Douglas Crockford scripsit:
> > So we should be working on at least two documents, which is something
> > we have discussed earlier. The first is The JSON Data Interchange
> > Format, which is a simple grammar. The second is a best practices
> > document, which recommends specific conventions of usage.
> 
> Fine, but the definition of the application/json media type can't be
> exiled to a BCP.  It either has to be in a separate standards-track
> RFC, or needs to be in the same RFC as the definition of JSON format
> but in a different section of it.  The latter strikes me as more
> sensible.

+1 and I also think that it makes more sense to put the media type
definition in the same RFC.


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email