Re: [Json] Proposal: the minimal edit

Robert,

I like the idea for a minimal edit.  I would be interested in what ends
up in such a section.  When it is thought to be complete I will want
want to know what implementations should do to avoid interoperability
problems.  Once you've written that out in normative language, if we can
get consensus on THAT I wonder if there will be ANY differences with
ECMAscript.

Interoperability is the issue.

Eliot

On 6/22/13 6:57 PM, R S wrote:
> From charter:
>
> "The work is essentially a reclassification in place, with minimal
> changes. The working group will review errata and update the document
> as needed to incorporate those, and will correct significant errors
> and inconsistencies, but will keep changes to a minimum."
>
> I propose a new section, to appear after "Generators" and before "IANA
> Considerations"
>
> + N. Differences from ECMAScript
> +
> + ECMAScript implementations produce and consume primitive JSON values
> at the 
> + root level of JSON documents.
>
> It's my opinion that none of the errors or inconsistencies present in
> the document are significant, since JSON works pretty well. I'll
> probably oppose any edits that aren't to the introduction or the
> security considerations, including updates to references such as ABNF
> and Unicode. Note that the IETF does not update all standards track
> documents with obsolete references, which demonstrates that leaving
> the current references in place is tractable.
>
> - Rob
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> json mailing list
> json@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json