IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Json] Upgrading SHOULD to MUST

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Tue, 19 February 2013 03:12 UTC

Return-Path: <mnot@mnot.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 10BF221E804B for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 19:12:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.426
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.426 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.827, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zdGgmdD0Z-fX for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 19:12:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net (mxout-08.mxes.net [216.86.168.183]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE87F21F8CBF for <json@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 19:12:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.80] (unknown [118.209.197.138]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 30D31509B9; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 22:12:12 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <B96D7751-4DF9-48AA-92EF-9FC248D56932@vpnc.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:12:08 +1100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <5F517CD8-1A28-46A5-8E34-01B0E51BE37D@mnot.net>
References: <A723FC6ECC552A4D8C8249D9E07425A70F8952D9@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com> <B96D7751-4DF9-48AA-92EF-9FC248D56932@vpnc.org>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
Cc: json@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Json] Upgrading SHOULD to MUST
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: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 03:12:19 -0000

On 19/02/2013, at 1:02 PM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote:
> 
> If we are supposed to be keeping backwards compatibility, then yes, it's too late. The same is true for changing SHOULD not have duplicate names in objects.
> 
> OTOH, if we want a cleaner standard going forwards, by all means let's take out the over-cautious SHOULDs, and make a clear statement in the Introduction where we changed the requirements.
> 
> I'm strongly in favor of the latter.
> 
> --Paul Hoffman

you ARE going to get Crockford involved in this process somehow, right?

Cheers,


--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email