Re: [Json] Possible next work for the WG

[Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]>]

<no hat>

On Oct 16, 2013, at 10:24 AM, Tim Bray <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]> wrote:
> - I-JSON (a profile of JSON with some interoperability issues nailed down)
> 
> This, frankly, is the only real reason I’ve invested work in this group and agreed to edit the -bis.  I want something that people who really rely on getting clean JSON can point to and say “do this” and not have to write any extra rules.
> 
> - Best practices document for JSON implementers and folks who use JSON in protocols
> 
> Nothing wrong with the idea, but I think that if we do the -bis and then I-JSON, it’d be superfluous. 

Maybe combining the two parts in that bullet point (for JSON implementers, for JSON use in protocols) was a bad idea. The latter has nothing to do with what was in the earlier discussion of I-JSON.

If the WG proceeds with I-JSON, do people have a feeling about what might go into a best practices document for implementers that isn't in I-JSON?

--Paul Hoffman