Re: [Json] Comments on proposed charter for JSON

Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> Mon, 04 March 2013 20:01 UTC

Return-Path: <derhoermi@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 178FA21F8F68 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 12:01:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 sSPZVJLnVt3U for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 12:01:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.18]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3ED621F8F6F for <json@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 12:01:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([10.1.76.2]) by mrigmx.server.lan (mrigmx001) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0LvP2r-1UvBgj2igN-010fda for <json@ietf.org>; Mon, 04 Mar 2013 21:01:34 +0100
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 04 Mar 2013 19:57:27 -0000
Received: from p5B233557.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO netb.Speedport_W_700V) [91.35.53.87] by mail.gmx.net (mp002) with SMTP; 04 Mar 2013 20:57:27 +0100
X-Authenticated: #723575
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+QCEkL8m2Q2EHnstGc/F1QkWC1B2ijrxMB5z4yvL XEkl+OOPUyZHG1
From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2013 20:57:27 +0100
Message-ID: <nht9j89rhh6e7vb48msbjklei85jfnjup1@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
References: <4F511CA8-1FC1-46AF-BC22-C64F2C63C052@vpnc.org> <A723FC6ECC552A4D8C8249D9E07425A70F8AF2FE@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com> <CAChr6SxPfxi2r--zKcF2WHPPqSyJ0b01jK2gauE=pHJ4_ZdTCw@mail.gmail.com> <0FD44EC8-2656-4F7B-B5F4-534131061E8B@vpnc.org> <qrr9j8p8a9ge5tfm2lvn12hg0kn8giq3np@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de> <1F9ABC49-FC11-4D19-ADED-4FED4DCA0E2C@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <1F9ABC49-FC11-4D19-ADED-4FED4DCA0E2C@vpnc.org>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 3.3/32.846
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Cc: json@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Json] Comments on proposed charter for JSON
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion related to JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\)." <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: Mon, 04 Mar 2013 20:01:47 -0000

* Paul Hoffman wrote:
>On Mar 4, 2013, at 11:12 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote:
>> * Paul Hoffman wrote:
>>> I *do* want to see browser folks familiar with the ECMAscript spec to 
>>> start working on a specific list of differences between it and RFC 4627. 
>>> If y'all can do that before the BoF meeting next week, it will help the 
>>> charter discussion.
>> 
>> That's already been done in the ecmascript specification:
>
>Incompletely. Have you already forgotten about:
>
>NOTE In the case where there are duplicate name Strings within an 
>object, lexically preceding values for the same key shall be 
>overwritten.

I do not regard that as a difference beyond that ecmascript defines an
API while RFC 4627 a data format. What would be the change here that
could be adopted? Require implementations to ignore lexically preceding
values, i.e., they must not be reported to higher-level applications and
implementations must not treat duplicates as an error of any kind?
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/