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

Bjoern Hoehrmann <> Sat, 12 October 2013 00:04 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1CE121F9B65 for <>; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 17:04:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.926
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.926 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.673, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jrVPUpXGWLwo for <>; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 17:04:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C9B511E8177 for <>; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 17:04:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from netb.Speedport_W_700V ([]) by (mrgmx103) with ESMTPA (Nemesis) id 0MfEsY-1V7CKL1aaQ-00Om9Q for <>; Sat, 12 Oct 2013 02:03:59 +0200
From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <>
To: Tim Bray <>
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 02:04:02 +0200
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 3.3/32.846
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:b0Cc/rONS2R6HM7qHmSZVPtsYnfxAgNFsqit65NkwvZh7Wm3+/L aoO6hKVWy0NEI/y0hTQR5gpamJwpuIW6LeW3m9ehk7WSLclWMrklZrvnviVpCubSpauzLNB UkWAB56DS3zeRKG19oCa4tWithBDXXDGDrspf2MrIt4MAzKQNpDyUWcWW6ZdXzqIPSl6NiM cLsC1jG35948JwJ3BEMyw==
Cc: JSON WG <>
Subject: Re: [Json] REMINDER - WGLC Ends 2013-10-11
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 00:04:14 -0000

* Tim Bray wrote:
>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.

The W3C specification for XML 1.0 says you cannot put a string like `1`
at the top level of a document, you have to wrap it inside an element.

So, if ECMA published their own specification for XML 1.0 that says the
string `1` is a well-formed XML 1.0 document, and the W3C specification
keeps saying the opposite, would you really describe that as perfect
harmony with no disagreement about what constitutes a well-formed XML
1.0 document? What would your XML 1.0 processor do when asked to parse
the string `1` in this scenario?

Under ECMA-404 the string `1` is "JSON text" but it is not "JSON text"
under the definition in RFC 4627 or draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-06. How
is that different from the scenario above? I can't imagine you saying
"This is one of the nice things about working with XML, some parsers
accept the string `1` correctly as well-formed XML document, while some
other processors correctly treat it as non-conforming garbage" but that
is the situation we have with JSON.
Björn Höhrmann · ·
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 ·
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 ·