Re: [Json] Scope: Wire format or runtime format?

"Markus Lanthaler" <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> Sun, 16 June 2013 10:59 UTC

Return-Path: <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
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 656A021F8D10 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 03:59:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.15
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.15 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT=1.449]
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 CxUhkMKBqIAC for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 03:59:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53E5221F9635 for <json@ietf.org>; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 03:59:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([10.1.76.34]) by mrigmx.server.lan (mrigmx001) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MUzND-1Up4yZ15Qb-00YSU5 for <json@ietf.org>; Sun, 16 Jun 2013 12:59:42 +0200
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 16 Jun 2013 10:59:42 -0000
Received: from 84-115-182-43.dynamic.surfer.at (EHLO Vostro3500) [84.115.182.43] by mail.gmx.net (mp034) with SMTP; 16 Jun 2013 12:59:42 +0200
X-Authenticated: #419883
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/EfrZwlYHELvsUUJZcb7SpSpsfRejsFoaUAoIvBV zobnkYm0QPFDCz
From: "Markus Lanthaler" <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
To: <json@ietf.org>
References: <6FC6B441-B74D-4B9F-B883-065C05890880@lindenbergsoftware.com> <0E2DB76C-3180-4D27-BD89-07C84A5D3599@vpnc.org> <51BCF9C0.1080408@att.com> <51BD96C5.80709@drees.name>
In-Reply-To: <51BD96C5.80709@drees.name>
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 12:59:39 +0200
Message-ID: <00b001ce6a80$9a821ea0$cf865be0$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Ac5qfl0On0yMhgE6QlWDHxoeX0ztGAAAg7HA
Content-Language: de
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Subject: Re: [Json] Scope: Wire format or runtime format?
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: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 10:59:49 -0000

On Sunday, June 16, 2013 12:43 PM, Stefan Drees wrote:
> On 2013-06-16 01:33 +02:00, Tony Hansen wrote:
> > On 6/15/2013 11:27 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> >> Why not both? RFC 4627 deals with both; why should the update change
> >> to restrict that?
> >
> > I'm with Paul -- it needs to continue to do both.
> >
> > IMO, there's 1) the character-based definition of the JSON format, the
> > one defined by the ABNF, and 2) an expression of that for over-the-wire
> > use as an application/json entity. The bulk of this document should be
> > focused on #1, and I think #2 can then be a fairly small section.
> 
> I second that POV. Until we started suggesting new titles for our
> well-beloved RFC 4627, we all focused mostly on #1 and took #2 for
> granted as necessary for hand-over "conventions".
> 
> Please keep these two aspects together in one document, and ... just let
> us **not** shoot too far over the approx. 2000 words RFC 4627 needed.
> Most discussions - until now - convinced me that we will not be able to
> really add that much to it, so many additional words will be considered
> unreasonable and diluting.
> 
> An additional document even worse, seems like complete overhead to me.

+1


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler