IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

R S <sayrer@gmail.com> Thu, 03 October 2013 02:41 UTC

Return-Path: <sayrer@gmail.com>
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 B829121F9F4F for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 19:41:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 sw0UB+zz8Vjr for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 19:41:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qc0-x22c.google.com (mail-qc0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::22c]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3864D21F9E9D for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 19:41:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qc0-f172.google.com with SMTP id l13so1221040qcy.3 for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 02 Oct 2013 19:41:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=MEWy67Fsa47MYZ3mF1aUl3b8UYaL4z76Pj9hHSwD+Fw=; b=GVhEIdC+Oi5FOuzC7ZsGMUnH/2NdcrDvgH7FKlLK+qPU7by532sjlGQVut+lfH32j/ 6TeNnvYpPtnWXwGG7gfi2uihm62WEsDxV7ULRjQrkVQ6w748tIapNLsqKkhiRTBsmDra VaFkIfs+DAS50MwRghJ6OPWO6v/PyDdW/CTkowIv4dUHbxzdaPuyP2TyYcYRLRPlGyjt F1182gr8arlIQrzMXM5RIMqcYu1UROkG57iI0Pk6jRucdHKTK266Hlo5XpmHqZOE/Xsi IVjEiJnt0HmF/I7q2qG4+GK4sPXQd9Pwul+sTJ9bwxvQoWj6dlXz/faGztOt61W085eh Eytw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.49.51.167 with SMTP id l7mr6837244qeo.52.1380768102712; Wed, 02 Oct 2013 19:41:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.140.86.147 with HTTP; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 19:41:42 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAHBU6ito+g2C-FkMC38kk3HQSgymAxNAyDof6O7TRvSHdNVsYg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BF7E36B9C495A6468E8EC573603ED9411EF1BB0B@xmb-aln-x11.cisco.com> <CAChr6SyznBktmOLpT-EiZ5Nm_0jZ16M0tOo4aZ_jhSDb=HHDqg@mail.gmail.com> <23C96FBA-3419-4C97-A075-462F7443013A@vpnc.org> <CAHBU6is2WzCNCwa0PYMM1Hr3Lij0GxWkVtVUan9=JPbvv0YCZg@mail.gmail.com> <CAChr6Sw72kxm8qJiDu=XMnARCttQPc5GNRQaXz4Xw9y+6-3=Mg@mail.gmail.com> <421F79DF-0B88-4E24-8666-189228E6E189@vpnc.org> <CAChr6SyEBkhbB5Mrr1AAqevzouvSa7Cx+qtvBx=HPCdgAiQjOg@mail.gmail.com> <20131002204435.GG30371@mercury.ccil.org> <CAHBU6ito+g2C-FkMC38kk3HQSgymAxNAyDof6O7TRvSHdNVsYg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 19:41:42 -0700
Message-ID: <CAChr6Sy3vusdW38nO4oiLfc5-SKJ0nE9aKTahxMbqbe23k7uAQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: R S <sayrer@gmail.com>
To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7bdc134a478cb104e7cd20bd"
Cc: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, JSON WG <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] Differences between RFC 4627 or the current ECMAScript specification
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" <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: Thu, 03 Oct 2013 02:41:58 -0000

On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> wrote:

> Does it matter in the slightest to anyone on the planet what it was
> derived from?
>

Well, let's see.

The text passes the first test we should use: it is true.

Second, the text uses this section to appropriately credit the work on
which it is based.

Third, the text is a concise explanation of what one might expect from the
JSON format.

Frankly, it's hard to for me to see the desire to remove that reference as
anything more than ideological.

- Rob



> On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 1:44 PM, John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> wrote:
>
>> R S scripsit:
>>
>> > I think we pretty clearly need to refer to 5.1 to do the comparison. We
>> > can leave the old reference for the "derived from" text if we want.
>>
>> +1 on both points:  JSON is derived from the 3rd edition, but should be
>> compared to the 5.1th (5.1st?) edition.
>>
>> --
>> Principles.  You can't say A is         John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
>> made of B or vice versa.  All mass      http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
>> is interaction.  --Richard Feynman
>> _______________________________________________
>> json mailing list
>> json@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>>
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email