Re: [Json] Two Documents

John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> Thu, 13 June 2013 15:57 UTC

Return-Path: <cowan@ccil.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 A9EDF21F9815 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 08:57:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.435
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.435 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.164, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 S6aOGKMozyjl for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 08:57:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from earth.ccil.org (earth.ccil.org [192.190.237.11]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1852421F9967 for <json@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 08:57:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cowan by earth.ccil.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <cowan@ccil.org>) id 1Un9te-0006UK-7v; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 11:57:10 -0400
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 11:57:10 -0400
From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
To: Douglas Crockford <douglas@crockford.com>
Message-ID: <20130613155710.GB29284@mercury.ccil.org>
References: <51B9EA49.2050604@crockford.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <51B9EA49.2050604@crockford.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Sender: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
Cc: "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] Two Documents
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, 13 Jun 2013 15:57:52 -0000

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.

-- 
John Cowan                                   cowan@ccil.org
        "You need a change: try Canada"  "You need a change: try China"
                --fortune cookies opened by a couple that I know