Re: [Json] Response to Statement from Ecma International TC39

Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> Mon, 09 December 2013 03:04 UTC

Return-Path: <tbray@textuality.com>
X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB33F1AE17D for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Dec 2013 19:04:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id chF3_eG1u8iO for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Dec 2013 19:04:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vc0-f179.google.com (mail-vc0-f179.google.com [209.85.220.179]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A03CE1AE072 for <json@ietf.org>; Sun, 8 Dec 2013 19:04:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vc0-f179.google.com with SMTP id ie18so2897947vcb.24 for <json@ietf.org>; Sun, 08 Dec 2013 19:04:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=dmddDe1hLdgWMHPw/YyEQRoX1z5WiShcdK7eR+RTTlA=; b=Hqma2XnjWEq5kI/xSEkZnxltuZhVXkQ/acSveWGKezKT1QodhdGaObGegqyFc4tPgO wDzzzEVYOPLhGJx4Ishjml1nVX3Twqek91JFt1mhi7cVCkRFAjvWweNCI/LAMM85yJID VGh6H7iEtUkJ9Uhby38lrHR7En+T5swAUSvwezv/aUhiemfSuNsyiTBSs/RQl1ZaL/Xg 3FIgwC1Rqm1WWhc4TnzrV5nz6daTb1GpwKTcI7uEeFqtc2FiI9kMflDxXIOOn6dq4iiM WXAXmplAce/n2F/L9hQFqRMWoOeA1Yr/6QetnCddDE8m2CvsaM9xrg6B9sTMpsGHWmBH lwEg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlmta2HaZvDqIDYh/aZwxuHE5dc6/MbTdPbfHigbmeSNH4dDTVk3uTcpZm9sxeXCzwh13yK
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.220.74.69 with SMTP id t5mr749658vcj.18.1386558269826; Sun, 08 Dec 2013 19:04:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.220.198.199 with HTTP; Sun, 8 Dec 2013 19:04:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Originating-IP: [24.84.235.32]
In-Reply-To: <CAChr6Szz-N3KBWo6xTg21gcAH2TV9VM1rDex0OXWPTaOnMY59g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C7707CE2-C43E-4171-AE96-9FAFDCE53317@cisco.com> <CAHBU6iva2H-ovjmfA7=7j2KxUuXAMjhCb8fcMgKxq6hk+A9BtQ@mail.gmail.com> <5D573C1A-BC67-4E00-9EFC-B57172CB0478@mnot.net> <E456E2BC-477A-4306-B676-8BDD52637CFB@vpnc.org> <F87F544A-DD2E-46A4-B682-E84E86ADB74B@mnot.net> <CAChr6Szz-N3KBWo6xTg21gcAH2TV9VM1rDex0OXWPTaOnMY59g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2013 19:04:29 -0800
Message-ID: <CAHBU6it_Yek95Jr+w86LDNQTZsdAaYanduKgPqMZx-vjnF8=wQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
To: R S <sayrer@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b624cbe226eef04ed1141aa"
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, JSON WG <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] Response to Statement from Ecma International TC39
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Mon, 09 Dec 2013 03:04:37 -0000

Um, yes. Repeatedly.  Current hot thread is the one with “W3C TAG” in the
title.


On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 6:58 PM, R S <sayrer@gmail.com> wrote:

> Has the WG debated a normative reference to ECMA-404?
>
> It is worth considering.
>
> - Rob
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 6:54 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 8 Dec 2013, at 3:10 am, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote:
>>
>> >> Why don’t we ask what their intent is for the future of 404, rather
>> than tell them what we deem it might be?
>> >
>> > Because their intent might change over time, just as anyone's might.
>> Intention are not promises, nor should they be. If Ecma had looked at our
>> intent for rfc4627bis nine months ago and thought they were promises, they
>> would be really pissed at us. SDOs doing technical work are often surprised
>> by what they find when a lot of different eyes focus on the topic, as you
>> are well aware from your current experience in httpbis.
>>
>> I don’t disagree with your logic, but fully applied, we couldn’t
>> reference our own publications, much less external ones.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>>
>> --
>> Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> json mailing list
>> json@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> json mailing list
> json@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>
>