[Json] Consensus re: top-level value restriction (Re: JSON: remove gap between Ecma-404 and IETF draft)
Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Tue, 19 November 2013 19:04 UTC
Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.com>
X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFC031AE156; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 11:04:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.378
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.378 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 23Y6rXRDWyTc; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 11:04:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from homiemail-a67.g.dreamhost.com (caiajhbdcaib.dreamhost.com [208.97.132.81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00A011AE13A; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 11:04:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from homiemail-a67.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a67.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9B2B27BC075; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 11:04:11 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h= mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; s= cryptonector.com; bh=1IEY9XO83wQa3M9RmPqtQa3XWaA=; b=hPKqyvk+rsL jo74NZQBWddC8QHPSFa0EF++E8BPz7bC8EanXccofUn4ARLvLQrdkuNHlPKkh68a U7ejYZtQBN9au1DTtZgHDpD61rDzQysmiBkiP/FEvS2PFU3fCwbIjIjwzuXYbbfb TOmQNebH7Jp62iFF8msA0GLOr053RqzQ=
Received: from mail-we0-f174.google.com (mail-we0-f174.google.com [74.125.82.174]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by homiemail-a67.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4AFE327BC06F; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 11:04:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-we0-f174.google.com with SMTP id q58so2361328wes.19 for <multiple recipients>; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 11:04:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=YVlUAzlZ3vCBcs0ha3P6CWwte5nLfAVFDleWV++LGCY=; b=QoaPkdG0D8yYE+74pFl9MkUfs7JFbQrEYRMTQ2gTumTJ2KpXbJYm/SqpwDvfbvyzt3 OwnzgUiDRTQssZYcreI0BddMedEHQeNxkz3iKHBxZJV4fqhJ789b8dlf3gtEl/zzxeU+ nH3BgREgSp3hIPtjIn5J56BLdea93kHvxNKiuttS0BbEjUqfSIkG7wBsY/lVy+Dj1qFh CSqnSYRt95iQt789F8aHZYrMkJBLVUzTDu+2cbGu4FTPuyyuewSWpheir2AXCyrOnPMf mZ1R00fl+GGX8KVVktUT4mMgg305WTmaBalb4YWc7TD0xg2ZFriuIeHh/MG4gJp2sjIj ja9A==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.20.202 with SMTP id p10mr3234877wje.39.1384887841823; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 11:04:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.216.151.136 with HTTP; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 11:04:01 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 13:04:01 -0600
Message-ID: <CAK3OfOiwydhkqETwTF+iVyL_imjDggw-VNmNupHiLy6CepKGmQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, es-discuss <es-discuss@mozilla.org>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, www-tag@w3.org, JSON WG <json@ietf.org>
Subject: [Json] Consensus re: top-level value restriction (Re: JSON: remove gap between Ecma-404 and IETF draft)
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 19:04:19 -0000
Wait, so now we have consensus for removing the top-level value restriction in the RFC and instead documenting the interop difference between IETF and ECMAScript JSON? That's what it sounds like to me. If so, thank goodness, we've around to the correct approach. Almost too late (and after earlier rejections that seemed much too out of hand to me, but hey, all's well that ends well), but not quite too late. Or, if the consensus is simply merely no longer clear, shouldn't we have a new consensus call on this? Nico --
- [Json] Consensus re: top-level value restriction … Nico Williams