Re: [Json] Two Documents

[John Cowan <[e-mail]>]

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                                   [e-mail]
        "You need a change: try Canada"  "You need a change: try China"
                --fortune cookies opened by a couple that I know