IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Wed, 02 October 2013 19:53 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
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 221F811E80DF for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 12:53:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 8fjB0pDosZc0 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 12:53:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6564D21F8F61 for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 12:43:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [165.227.249.247] (sn80.proper.com [75.101.18.80]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.7/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r92JhpAD031170 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 12:43:52 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: hoffman.proper.com: Host sn80.proper.com [75.101.18.80] claimed to be [165.227.249.247]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAHBU6itBfoNdfLtjhKhWSbwnFj_rmLzCQb++p160VcbiddNLCg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 12:43:51 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E9F449BF-5F5E-48AF-A7D8-948E9CE430E3@vpnc.org>
References: <BF7E36B9C495A6468E8EC573603ED9411EF1BB0B@xmb-aln-x11.cisco.com> <CAChr6SyznBktmOLpT-EiZ5Nm_0jZ16M0tOo4aZ_jhSDb=HHDqg@mail.gmail.com> <23C96FBA-3419-4C97-A075-462F7443013A@vpnc.org> <CAHBU6is2WzCNCwa0PYMM1Hr3Lij0GxWkVtVUan9=JPbvv0YCZg@mail.gmail.com> <msno49dcetlu4jaelpu2jqk68116v27sgu@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de> <CAHBU6itBfoNdfLtjhKhWSbwnFj_rmLzCQb++p160VcbiddNLCg@mail.gmail.com>
To: JSON WG <json@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
Subject: Re: [Json] Differences between RFC 4627 or the current ECMAScript specification
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: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 19:53:37 -0000

<no hat>

On Oct 2, 2013, at 11:31 AM, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> wrote:

> So, would it be enough to:
> - update the informative reference to point to 5.1
> - Have a note that there are differences, with a pointer to section 15.12?  

This works for me. In specific, if we try to list the differences, we are in some sense saying what ECMAScript means, and that feels kind of rude (just as it would be rude for them to tell us what RFC 4627 meant to say).

--Paul Hoffman

v2.36.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status