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

[Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>]

On Oct 2, 2013, at 19:20, Tim Bray <[e-mail]> 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