Re: [Json] Minimal edit proposal, second round

[Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]>]

<no hat>

On Jun 26, 2013, at 11:23 AM, John Cowan <[e-mail]> wrote:

> If we do that, we will have an ambiguous document on the standards track.

We currently have an ambiguous document *that everyone has used for six years* as the de facto standard. No one noticed this ambiguity (at least in public) until *after* we started this WG.

I claim that leaving the long-unnoticed ambiguity in and slightly calling it out will do no harm to the people who use the standard.

> The problem with implementation guidance is that it isn't normative:
> nobody can insist on compliance with it.  

If the implementation guidance is written carefully (and, given the high interest in this topic in the past month, I bet it will be), someone can insist on compliance to section 3.2.1's interpretation instead of 3.2.2's interpretation.

> If there's really no choice
> except to dissolve and recharter, or to pass this farce, +1 for dissolution.

<hat>

We don't have to dissolve in order to recharter. In fact, we are better off if we don't.

--Paul Hoffman