Re: [Json] Minimal edit proposal, second round

[Bjoern Hoehrmann <[e-mail]>]

* Paul Hoffman wrote:
>[...]

I think the Working Group should attempt to standardize JSON in one
document that obsoletes RFC 4627. That requires finding a consensus
around issues like whether to allow strings at the top level and if
Unicode signatures are permitted in application/json entities. It'd
be quite unfortunate for the group to decide not to try to do so. I
think the only problem so far was the choice of process that mainly
lead to editorial discussions without providing much insight on the
running code and rough consensus side of the substantive issues.

I think it would be helpful, for instance, to conduct an off-list
straw poll collecting data on where people stand on issues like if
UTF-8 encoded application/json entities may start with `EF BB BF`,
whether `["\uDFFF"]` is ("should be defined as valid") JSON and so
on. Ideally with some data on what implementations and JSON forks
do and corresponding rationale available beforehand. When we have
that, we might find that there is no rough consensus on the issues,
and might decide to do only a minimal bugfix revision, but we are
not there yet.

In http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/json/current/msg00193.html
I said pretty much the same during the chartering discussions.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[e-mail] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: [phone] · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/