Re: [Json] Comments on proposed charter for JSON

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Mon, 04 March 2013 23:24 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
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 1108A21F870C for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 15:24:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 LUDv9ijbYSUo for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 15:24:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05B7A21F86BC for <json@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 15:24:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.20.30.90] (50-1-98-12.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.1.98.12]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r24NO7Xk055972 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 4 Mar 2013 16:24:08 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <nht9j89rhh6e7vb48msbjklei85jfnjup1@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 15:24:07 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <FC07863F-8C30-4671-92E8-231D95384E94@vpnc.org>
References: <4F511CA8-1FC1-46AF-BC22-C64F2C63C052@vpnc.org> <A723FC6ECC552A4D8C8249D9E07425A70F8AF2FE@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com> <CAChr6SxPfxi2r--zKcF2WHPPqSyJ0b01jK2gauE=pHJ4_ZdTCw@mail.gmail.com> <0FD44EC8-2656-4F7B-B5F4-534131061E8B@vpnc.org> <qrr9j8p8a9ge5tfm2lvn12hg0kn8giq3np@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de> <1F9ABC49-FC11-4D19-ADED-4FED4DCA0E2C@vpnc.org> <nht9j89rhh6e7vb48msbjklei85jfnjup1@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
Cc: json@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Json] Comments on proposed charter for JSON
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion related to JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\)." <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: Mon, 04 Mar 2013 23:24:26 -0000

On Mar 4, 2013, at 11:57 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote:

> * Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> On Mar 4, 2013, at 11:12 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote:
>>> * Paul Hoffman wrote:
>>>> I *do* want to see browser folks familiar with the ECMAscript spec to 
>>>> start working on a specific list of differences between it and RFC 4627. 
>>>> If y'all can do that before the BoF meeting next week, it will help the 
>>>> charter discussion.
>>> 
>>> That's already been done in the ecmascript specification:
>> 
>> Incompletely. Have you already forgotten about:
>> 
>> NOTE In the case where there are duplicate name Strings within an 
>> object, lexically preceding values for the same key shall be 
>> overwritten.
> 
> I do not regard that as a difference beyond that ecmascript defines an
> API while RFC 4627 a data format. What would be the change here that
> could be adopted? Require implementations to ignore lexically preceding
> values, i.e., they must not be reported to higher-level applications and
> implementations must not treat duplicates as an error of any kind?

RFC 4627 is not purely a data format: there are implied parsing rules. For all the parts of 4627 format that are MUST-level, the implied parsing rules are clear for developers; where there are SHOULD-level rules in the format, the parsing rules become indeterminate.

It would make sense for 4627bis to deal with parsing rules in a way that matches ECMAscript (minus the optional reviver). It can do this by making everything MUST-level, or it can have a short set of parsing rules. I *thin* that the only change that is needed would be to add the "NOTE" above because that is the only "SHOULD" in 4627, but I want to hear from people who have spent much more time with ECMAscript to be sure.

--Paul Hoffman