Re: [Json] What are we trying to do?

[Nico Williams <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On Jul 3, 2013, at 18:29, Nico Williams <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> leave the rest mostly as-is
>
> That means that every user of JSON has to define their own additional clarifications, as JOSE has started to do.
> In effect, each user creates their own little dialect.

Why couldn't they reference the BCP?

But as I said, I also don't mind us publishing an "Internet JSON".
We'd have to grapple with the meaning of the existing MIME type for
JSON, but JOSE could normatively reference "Internet JSON" and be
done.

I guess that's a lot of choices.

> A textbook example for how to create soup.
>
> I'd rather have 2 or 3 flavors of JSON than n, where n is the number of users.
> (Or, if it has to be, 2 or 3 on/off pizza toppings each of which can be selected or deselected.)

Well, yes, but those N happen to mostly interop.  I'm not sure that
we've seen claims of non-interoperability for any applications, just
differences in JSON implementations which most definitely *can* cause
interop problems, but maybe they never happen because users implicitly
end up sticking to interoperable subsets of JSON.  Not robust, but the
world has been working anyways.

Nico
--