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

[Bjoern Hoehrmann <[e-mail]>]

* 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 · mailto:[e-mail] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: [phone] · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/