Re: [Json] Proposed document set from this WG

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Wed, 20 February 2013 16:59 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
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 799F421F8816 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 08:59:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.293
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.293 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.294, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_45=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id edu9LTDfjovZ for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 08:59:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0990D21F880B for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 08:59:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.20.30.90] (50-1-98-12.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.1.98.12]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r1KGx1i7088247 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 09:59:01 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <A723FC6ECC552A4D8C8249D9E07425A70F89AF14@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 08:59:00 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <17425F97-2FA0-4AED-8F84-4664E5FAC6BC@vpnc.org>
References: <A723FC6ECC552A4D8C8249D9E07425A70F89AF14@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com>
To: "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
Subject: Re: [Json] Proposed document set from this WG
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion related to JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\)." <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: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 16:59:02 -0000

On Feb 20, 2013, at 8:51 AM, "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <jhildebr@cisco.com> 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