Re: [Json] REMINDER - WGLC Ends 2013-10-11

"Jim Schaad" <> Fri, 11 October 2013 21:08 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DB6321F9BD0 for <>; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 14:08:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7fEhDLf7cXql for <>; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 14:08:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 825C221F9B86 for <>; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 14:08:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Philemon ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4B71238F03 for <>; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 14:08:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Jim Schaad" <>
To: "'JSON WG'" <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 14:06:38 -0700
Message-ID: <078c01cec6c5$d19fc990$74df5cb0$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQJeM09fUXFhQoCp/b4kH1REUE6vypjRHpHQ
Content-Language: en-us
Subject: Re: [Json] REMINDER - WGLC Ends 2013-10-11
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 21:08:18 -0000

Nothing earth shattering, I think the document can progress.  A few small
comments that might duplicate others peoples comments.  I am not wedded to
any of the comments, ignore if you don't care for them.


1.  It seems odd in Section 1 that a value is defined for object, but it is
not for array.  It might be better to move the definition of value in the
paragraph of what JSON can represent so it does not appear to be special for

2.  In section 1.2, My reading of the following text ||"Hello world!", "42",
and "true"|| is that there are three strings here, but I think it was
supposed to represent a string, an number and a Boolean.  I am not sure how
to make this clearer, but killing the quotes on the last two items might be

3.  It seems a bit odd to title section 2 "Grammar" when it does not have
the entire grammar.  It also seems odd that the introduction paragraph talks
about things which are not in this section, but are in the following

4.  The following is technically a change in the grammar, however is there a
reason why an integer cannot be 00, but 1E00 is legal?  Do we want to change
the definition of the exponent so that it matches that of integer?

5.  There has been mention that one reason for using ABNF is that it can be
machine consumable, does it make any sense to create an appendix which has
the full grammar in it for simplicity of reference?