Re: [Json] Possible next work for the WG

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Thu, 17 October 2013 15:53 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46D0111E8283 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 08:53:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 18XxFzo3HnNd for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 08:53:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4BD511E827E for <json@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 08:53:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.20.30.90] (50-0-66-41.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.0.66.41]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id r9HFrCeu004911 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 17 Oct 2013 08:53:13 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: hoffman.proper.com: Host 50-0-66-41.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.0.66.41] claimed to be [10.20.30.90]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAHBU6ivgst1vThXYCvAR8XY6EtHK7-hKroVqTFHUB9Sr544dKQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 08:53:11 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D2D90EA1-0E4C-4973-B8E9-48831DABFA31@vpnc.org>
References: <29850F92-23F1-4859-BB5A-BB5F1F20DD38@vpnc.org> <CAHBU6ivgst1vThXYCvAR8XY6EtHK7-hKroVqTFHUB9Sr544dKQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
Cc: JSON WG <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] Possible next work for the WG
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" <json.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/json>, <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/json>
List-Post: <mailto:json@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json>, <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 15:53:14 -0000

<no hat>

On Oct 16, 2013, at 10:24 AM, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> 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