IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Json] Response to Statement from W3C TAG

Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> Thu, 05 December 2013 05:08 UTC

Return-Path: <tbray@textuality.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 36C351AE02F for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 21:08:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
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 GIMfVvxFrrnG for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 21:08:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vc0-f179.google.com (mail-vc0-f179.google.com [209.85.220.179]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA4951AE1BB for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 21:08:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vc0-f179.google.com with SMTP id ie18so12390975vcb.38 for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 04 Dec 2013 21:08:18 -0800 (PST)
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=aFvzWXm5dhqutrEzToPhh9rYXMYhNjDXhgGHLP+b05g=; b=M25MG7a1Ldr7YVt6Eaaq4vN7S3YPMaFT2FqhjZ9/e+NV/AE/+byKrMH0bRVUB3kkPj DzX7gcTRWedOiCGNiYVfB+TpeIQ4boVGWOlHC7r8WmC/4D+AR+A8xz6wAcHV11ffOe1L X1dVg9HbIzg8KKzRnWPqRFtkSbmjEi3l0ZgKgQO5P7f3IzTKeDfcLMd4xjw44pYLS+cU 11TL+QGTgREogbVeW1tBdEEtZakOHIa7uOa7PHuKZ0nFmroBkD5clqDmlvlG18mQZn3B QiF4LP1y4+skcY2VXm8914xNu5Qz/hU+aLdmalEkAlcXAX1jbb3VNEUrnMKDC6a7BGj3 LQZg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmX/7CV0hVbcSQuBi3fNNJgqkAk1aCUHFRsEHBHG0t2Ncuvbalc8xO2AHoSR/o4IaHUrSXt
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.220.74.69 with SMTP id t5mr46778424vcj.18.1386220098418; Wed, 04 Dec 2013 21:08:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.220.198.199 with HTTP; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 21:08:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Originating-IP: [24.84.235.32]
In-Reply-To: <799C8AFA-53C3-4698-A14A-96CB79981DE5@cisco.com>
References: <799C8AFA-53C3-4698-A14A-96CB79981DE5@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2013 21:08:18 -0800
Message-ID: <CAHBU6itM4haCemNe-MzPFwHf659KWfqXA+yACLCyQFfPrw_w2A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
To: "Matt Miller (mamille2)" <mamille2@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b624cbe8c6a4d04ecc2840b"
Cc: JSON WG <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] Response to Statement from W3C TAG
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: Thu, 05 Dec 2013 05:08:24 -0000

On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 6:57 PM, Matt Miller (mamille2)
<mamille2@cisco.com>wrote:


> On the topic of JSON semantics, Ecma TC39 has said repeatedly that
> ECMA-404 is meant to only document the JSON syntax, with no description of
> the semantics of encoding or parsing. On the other hand,
> draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis and RFC 4627 before it express both syntax and
> semantics. For a format such as JSON, interoperability in encoders and
> parsers can only be achieved with descriptions of both syntax and semantics.
>

FWIW, I have never understood what the ECMAnauts mean by the word
“semantics” in this context, so I have no idea whether I agree with this
statement.


>  A great deal of effort in the JSON WG process around
> draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis has been to carefully describe differences
> between the new spec and ECMAScript.
>

Really? I don’t think I agree.  The only difference was the top-level
restriction, which took a small uncontroversial paragraph to describe.


>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email