Re: [Json] Differences between RFC 4627 or the current ECMAScript specification

[Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]>]

On Sep 26, 2013, at 5:54 PM, R S <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On Sep 26, 2013, at 4:23 PM, R S <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> > Are you saying the concerns you list below warrant a recharter? If so, I disagree.
> 
> No, I was suggesting we ignore the charter and beg for forgiveness.
> 
> Bad suggestion--the charter means what it says. If it doesn't, integrity would compel us to consider all of the suggestions that fall outside of the charter.

Sorry if you don't feel that we are acting in "integrity".

> There is no JSON definition in ECMAScript 3.

Whatever you want to call the third edition:
   [ECMA]    European Computer Manufacturers Association, "ECMAScript
             Language Specification 3rd Edition", December 1999,
             <http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/
             ecma-st/ECMA-262.pdf>.

> We are free to cite the current version of ECMAScript, as Tim points out.

Only if we can agree on what that version is. And if we can agree that doing so actually brings value to the document. The latter is more important to me than the coin we use for the former.

> Again, we won't be citing a future version with hypothetical changes. 
> 
> > But you seem keen on us having such a section. Please provide the full wording for what you
> > think would be valuable to include.
> 
> I already have--feel free to reuse it.

It was:

The ECMAScript specification allows primitives at the root level, specifies exactly how to interpret numbers, and can handle "bit sequences which cannot encode Unicode characters" just fine.

Do others here agree with all three parts? Or is there different suggested wording?

Also: You did not include the second bullet from ECMAScript 5.1, Section 15.12. Is there a reason for that?

--Paul Hoffman