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

["Markus Lanthaler" <[e-mail]>]

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