Re: [Json] Differences between RFC 4627 or the current ECMAScript specification

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

Paul,

On 9/26/13 8:36 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> <no hat>

I've got an IAB hat, and it involves this, but I am but a member of the
IAB, and the below is my advice.
>
> Based on what we have learned in the last six months, it might be better for this RFC *not* to do what the charter says.

This is a matter for Pete.  He hinted at something about this in a
previous message, but...
>
> - TC39 is actively revising ECMAScript and it is not clear whether the -bis draft of their version will be out first.
>
> - Some of what ECMAscript says about JSON is intertwingled with the definition of ECMAscript, such as "exactly how to interpret numbers"
>
> I'm no longer sure that a long-lasting RFC interpreting parts of another SDO's spec is a good idea.
>
>

What I would suggest is that at the very least we understand the
differences, so that we know what we're getting into.  My understanding
is that what is proposed in the latest draft is in line with what
they've produced, although we provide interoperability guidance that is
somewhat more constraining.  Some eyes here would be good.

If we agree on all of this, there is the question on whether or not the
document should simply normatively reference ECMA.  But I would only do
this if we are agreed that the normative specifications are intended to
be identical, and then I would think it a good idea (even though I'm
entirely non-plussed by the approach taken by ECMA members), simply to
avoid unintended differences.

If, however, the working group has diverged intentionally, I would
suggest that those differences be called out.

Eliot