Re: [Json] REMINDER - WGLC Ends 2013-10-11

Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> Fri, 11 October 2013 23:24 UTC

Return-Path: <tbray@textuality.com>
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 1CF0A11E819F for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 16:24:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.024
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.024 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.048, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 osfMYE7dyogO for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 16:24:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vc0-f175.google.com (mail-vc0-f175.google.com [209.85.220.175]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F6E111E8174 for <json@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 16:24:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vc0-f175.google.com with SMTP id ia6so2342594vcb.34 for <json@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 16:24:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=UkZp4oQYk7G6QGq5f9qgODGCJcTpzuw4Y2LBqlUNPOg=; b=b59SfWAAeuot3ULOUFGF7uRuEncnAzfmjDaQQ3W7wxAVyzM4e1dOakxK8mZWPVozSR ekMJ9xvlYu91hOvYgC/bJbRJaNmsWV8LXKk7JEeIHIr9ihHExpCxgolKrdoRZJOD99oX JY2iepde2QXMLrdySoHoG1RkMSS1DZ0RcEqw0xARKrtW2S90uF+0sjU/NPO1P3yJNHsj zTToXCp9yA7e296nf62KmOzGfjlTRso0gbylArafT8ZSCDKcrHmwGLYZhjnpIUtTKlpj V+gUHwR7Wsyd5WR9rGwkkLeIRukcaQtS/tij/2IeeOUWUK8dqYhYXqE1fOKweAh10T9X ChRg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm6/fwGpFyHnwbgjlzzpDZAG4vdLJyCv90WdlRr8oQIRcvBQLEZeKt2reSLig0RDe6pBzUk
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.220.43.19 with SMTP id u19mr23165001vce.3.1381533857988; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 16:24:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.174.197 with HTTP; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 16:24:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [96.49.81.176]
In-Reply-To: <lkf1yx0p824ir3w7kxdttde9.1381533395741@email.android.com>
References: <lkf1yx0p824ir3w7kxdttde9.1381533395741@email.android.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 16:24:17 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHBU6iuu=2w50FxUCW1bCwhdFdv62JFk24czUE9E05eLzFmKHQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
To: Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen@wirfs-brock.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b3a914cd9d99004e87f6aeb
Cc: JSON WG <json@ietf.org>, Matt Miller <mamille2@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [Json] REMINDER - WGLC Ends 2013-10-11
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: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 23:24:24 -0000

Have a look at the “Specifications of JSON” section.  I think it makes it
clear that there are multiple specifications of JSON, they are all in
perfect harmony as to the syntactic elements of the language, and thus it
would be counterproductive to suggest that the reader needs to go anywhere
else to make sure they have it right.

This is one of the nice things about working with JSON, there is no
disagreement as to the syntax of the language.


On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 4:21 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen@wirfs-brock.com>wrote;wrote:

> I didn't suggest removing the ABNF. I suggested relabeling it as
> informative.
>
>
>
> Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> wrote:
>
> Since the normative definitions are isomorphic, there is no benefit to the
> reader in making them go somewhere else to discover what is already present
> in this document, and that would be the only effect of removing the syntax
> specification, especially since there is no intention anywhere that the
> syntax ever change.  -T
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen@wirfs-brock.com>wrote;wrote:
>
>> We really should avoid having two (Ecma-404 and rfc4627bis) normative
>> syntax specifications for JSON text.  Since it is claimed that the 4627bis
>> ABNF recognizes the same language as that described by the Ecma-404 syntax
>> diagrams it would seem more appropriate for 4627bis to narratively
>> reference Ecma-404 and say that the 4627bis ABNF is an informative
>> restatement of the Ecma-404 syntax specification.
>>
>> Notational preference really isn't a very good reason to have  two
>> different normative definitions of the same thing.
>>
>> Allen Wirfs-Brock
>> _______________________________________________
>> json mailing list
>> json@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>>
>
>