Re: [Json] Proposal: the minimal edit

[John Cowan <[e-mail]>]

R S scripsit:

> It's my opinion that none of the errors or inconsistencies present in
> the document are significant, since JSON works pretty well.

It does at the level of an informational protocol, but not at the level of
standards track.  Would you be willing to sign a contract, arm's-length,
with someone whose only constraint was that their code passed *some*
interpretation of the RFC?  I certainly would not.  As I pointed out
before, the parser conformance clause (first paragraph of Section 4)
is satisfied by any program that accepts arbitrary input and produces
arbitrary output distinct from the input (or indeed no output at all,
given the over-free wording in the second paragraph).

> Note that the IETF does not update all standards track documents with
> obsolete references, which demonstrates that leaving the current
> references in place is tractable.

I don't think that applies to documents entering the standards track in
the first place.

-- 
You are a child of the universe no less         John Cowan
than the trees and all other acyclic            http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
graphs; you have a right to be here.            [e-mail]
  --DeXiderata by Sean McGrath