Re: [Json] Differences between RFC 4627 or the current ECMAScript specification

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Wed, 02 October 2013 18:39 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.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 74CC821F9EED for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 11:39:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 GCttm+fWRbN0 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 11:39:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80AFF21F9767 for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 11:34:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de
Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r92IYTG4022521; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 20:34:29 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [192.168.217.105] (p54894EBD.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.137.78.189]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2487E632; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 20:34:29 +0200 (CEST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAHBU6is2WzCNCwa0PYMM1Hr3Lij0GxWkVtVUan9=JPbvv0YCZg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 20:34:28 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D4BE2B82-7ACF-4660-98A7-8EA858FB7067@tzi.org>
References: <BF7E36B9C495A6468E8EC573603ED9411EF1BB0B@xmb-aln-x11.cisco.com> <CAChr6SyznBktmOLpT-EiZ5Nm_0jZ16M0tOo4aZ_jhSDb=HHDqg@mail.gmail.com> <23C96FBA-3419-4C97-A075-462F7443013A@vpnc.org> <CAHBU6is2WzCNCwa0PYMM1Hr3Lij0GxWkVtVUan9=JPbvv0YCZg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
Cc: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, JSON WG <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] Differences between RFC 4627 or the current ECMAScript specification
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: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 18:39:51 -0000

On Oct 2, 2013, at 19:20, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> wrote:

> So, I (blush) confess to never having read ECMA-262, which is what 4627 references.  I thought I’d have a glance; I'm assuming that what I want is: http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST-ARCH/ECMA-262,%203rd%20edition,%20December%201999.pdf

That version defines a language that we usually call JavaScript, which includes a literal notation for JavaScript objects and arrays.  The latter notation can be called JavaScript Object Notation.

JSON used that literal notation as an inspiration (and as a way to minimize bikeshedding), but is otherwise not dependent on that standard.

The fact that the acronym JSON was built from the long form "JavaScript Object Notation" causes no end of confusion, including the impression that JSON is still somehow tied to JavaScript.

That's why it is important to add an RFC editor note that explains that we don't want to expand "JSON" in the title of the document, which otherwise inevitably will happen.

Of course, the 1999 edition of ECMAScript is still the edition that should be cited to explain the historical JavaScript roots of JSON.

If a comparison between JSON and the format implemented by the "JSON" object in newer versions of ECMAScript is desired, we first need to choose a stable version of ECMAScript that already includes the JavaScript "JSON" object.  I have no opinion which one that should be.

Grüße, Carsten