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

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:

> 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:
>
>> 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
>>
>
>