Re: [Json] Two Documents

Hi Douglas,

I think your suggestion of two documents is an interesting one.  One way
to go would be to create the 2nd document and include what needs to be
included there, and then decide LATER whether to merge the two documents
back.  If the best practices document ends up not being excessive in
length, then perhaps there's no harm in adding stuff back to the main
document, so long as it is clear what is normative and what is advice.

Eliot

On 6/13/13 12:11 PM, Douglas Crockford wrote:
>
> On 6/13/2013 8:57 AM, John Cowan wrote:
>> Douglas Crockford scripsit:
>>
>>> The confusion and controversy around this work is due to a mistake
>>> that I made in RFC 4627. The purpose of the RFC, which is clearly
>>> indicated in the title, was to establish a MIME type. I also gave
>>> a description of the JSON Data Interchange Format. My mistake was
>>> in conflating the two, putting details about the MIME type into the
>>> description of the format. My intention was to add clarity. That
>>> obviously was not the result.
>> Indeed.
>>
>>> So we should be working on at least two documents, which is something
>>> we have discussed earlier. The first is The JSON Data Interchange
>>> Format, which is a simple grammar. The second is a best practices
>>> document, which recommends specific conventions of usage.
>> Fine, but the definition of the application/json media type can't be
>> exiled to a BCP.  It either has to be in a separate standards-track RFC,
>> or needs to be in the same RFC as the definition of JSON format but in a
>> different section of it.  The latter strikes me as more sensible.
>>
> I think it will be better for ECMA that application/json be in a
> separate document.
> ECMA does not appear to be concerned with the maintenance of MIME types.
> _______________________________________________
> json mailing list
> json@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>
>