Re: [Json] Two Documents

Douglas Crockford <> Wed, 19 June 2013 02:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B88321E8082 for <>; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 19:07:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.98
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.98 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5TeIkopT0gYv for <>; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 19:06:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B38621E8063 for <>; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 19:06:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) by (node=mrus3) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MCtad-1UyESq0ipP-008qNO; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 22:06:51 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 19:06:22 -0700
From: Douglas Crockford <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Matt Miller (mamille2)" <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:yhKCaxmmf3JkL50pt5Cwn91jLXMR9C0Llq1UuYxjOVv ufwwf3ES8DpVUOjp8YufdbbyWMKcfiPYaQYjPRfvqicOPlM9tf aTuwEga4mYyyH3LaQy4AKrRPNiyWprAW6QOAHw4GrUl2KRMrBY 3OvLBytZ2G+z6kNI6GWnmUCa/ubyblnfFWkIOCc53lOAWRqzuS 30KneRZsOWglQgNnovVETShykcjphFYJU6jH9b2bAs7P3MLnis 3uyZYTC11XNHXxEdz313BP3kvKbhlIfOe0bJOCfUgao9zqG1EN n4VTt0mQapi+pl+MXVjqYlb94elGlBsZ8EdzHJGwBG/MYKeJwa I0A5yV+KjETPH/q4ENTY=
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [Json] Two Documents
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: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 02:07:01 -0000

On 6/17/2013 5:14 PM, Matt Miller (mamille2) wrote:
> Hello Douglas,
> In order for the WG to fully understand your proposal, we need a more definitive list of what to expect in each document.
> As a starting point, can you describe which sections of the current RFC4627 would be in "JSON Data Interchange Format" and which would be in the JSON best practices document?  Clearly the latter will have many additions from the recent discussions, but it is less clear which portions of the current text goes into which document.
Please excuse the lateness of this reply. I am traveling.

I am proposing that The JSON Data Interchange Format document contain 
only the material that is universal to all applications of JSON. So, for 
example, the only dependency on any character encoding is the 
interpretation of the four hex digits in the \u notation, where Unicode 
determines the meaning of the numbers.

It includes an abstract, an introduction, the detailing of the elements 
(object, array, string, etc), and security considerations. No parsers or 
generators, no octets, no MIME types.

This provides a standard description of JSON that all other standards 
and practices may refer to. I think this is the standard that ECMA wants 
to publish.

We can then consider other documents that constrain or interpret JSON 
for specific purposes. The poorly named application/json is one. JSON as 
a file format, JSON as a streaming format, and JSON as an embedded data 
representation are others.