Re: [Json] Proposed document set from this WG

[Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]>]

On Feb 20, 2013, at 8:51 AM, "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> +1, with one caveat.  What if we find ECMAScript 5 and 4627 to be in
> conflict in some way?
> 
> In particular, I find:
> 
> 15.12: "Conforming implementations of JSON.parse and JSON.stringify must
> support the exact interchange format described in this specification
> without any deletions or extensions to the format. This differs from RFC
> 4627 which permits a JSON parser to accept non-JSON forms and extensions."
> 
> 15.12.1.1: The ABNF is constructed differently.  Hopefully in a completely
> compatible way (looks that way with a couple of minutes analysis), but we
> all know how finicky even small changes to ABNF can be.
> 
> 15.12.1.2: JSONText can be any value, not just object or array.  I think
> this would be a positive change for 4627bis, perhaps with a note that
> older processors are likely to reject any top level that is not an object
> or array.

Proposal:
- The WG picks one of the two ways
- 4627bis says MUST for that way
- In the Introduction (not an appendix), there is a subsection that lists every change from either 4627 or ECMAScript 5

--Paul Hoffman