Re: [Json] Comments on proposed charter for JSON

Paul Hoffman <> Mon, 04 March 2013 23:24 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1108A21F870C for <>; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 15:24:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LUDv9ijbYSUo for <>; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 15:24:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05B7A21F86BC for <>; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 15:24:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (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
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
From: Paul Hoffman <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2013 15:24:07 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
Subject: Re: [Json] Comments on proposed charter for JSON
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion related to JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\)." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2013 23:24:26 -0000

On Mar 4, 2013, at 11:57 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann <> wrote:

> * Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> On Mar 4, 2013, at 11:12 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann <> 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