Re: [Json] Scope: Wire format or runtime format?

"Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Mon, 17 June 2013 01:59 UTC

Message-ID: <51BE6D79.5010909@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 10:59:21 +0900
From: "\"Martin J. Dürst\"" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Organization: Aoyama Gakuin University
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100722 Eudora/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
References: <6FC6B441-B74D-4B9F-B883-065C05890880@lindenbergsoftware.com> <0E2DB76C-3180-4D27-BD89-07C84A5D3599@vpnc.org> <51BCF9C0.1080408@att.com> <51BD96C5.80709@drees.name> <00b001ce6a80$9a821ea0$cf865be0$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
In-Reply-To: <00b001ce6a80$9a821ea0$cf865be0$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: json@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Json] Scope: Wire format or runtime format?
Precedence: list

On 2013/06/16 19:59, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
> On Sunday, June 16, 2013 12:43 PM, Stefan Drees wrote:
>> On 2013-06-16 01:33 +02:00, Tony Hansen wrote:
>>> On 6/15/2013 11:27 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>>>> Why not both? RFC 4627 deals with both; why should the update change
>>>> to restrict that?
>>>
>>> I'm with Paul -- it needs to continue to do both.
>>>
>>> IMO, there's 1) the character-based definition of the JSON format, the
>>> one defined by the ABNF, and 2) an expression of that for over-the-wire
>>> use as an application/json entity. The bulk of this document should be
>>> focused on #1, and I think #2 can then be a fairly small section.
>>
>> I second that POV.

+1.

But as far as I understand, these two were not the two that Norbert was 
talking about in the mail that started this thread. (More on that in a 
separate mail.)

>> Until we started suggesting new titles for our
>> well-beloved RFC 4627, we all focused mostly on #1 and took #2 for
>> granted as necessary for hand-over "conventions".
>>
>> Please keep these two aspects together in one document, and ... just let
>> us **not** shoot too far over the approx. 2000 words RFC 4627 needed.
>> Most discussions - until now - convinced me that we will not be able to
>> really add that much to it, so many additional words will be considered
>> unreasonable and diluting.
>>
>> An additional document even worse, seems like complete overhead to me.
>
> +1

+1, at least as long as we haven't tried seriously with one document.

Regards,   Martin.

[Json] Scope: Wire format or runtime format? Norbert Lindenberg
Re: [Json] Scope: Wire format or runtime format? Nico Williams
Re: [Json] Scope: Wire format or runtime format? Paul Hoffman
Re: [Json] Scope: Wire format or runtime format? Tim Bray
Re: [Json] Scope: Wire format or runtime format? John Cowan
Re: [Json] Scope: Wire format or runtime format? Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)
Re: [Json] Scope: Wire format or runtime format? John Cowan
Re: [Json] Scope: Wire format or runtime format? Tony Hansen
Re: [Json] Scope: Wire format or runtime format? Stefan Drees
Re: [Json] Scope: Wire format or runtime format? Markus Lanthaler
Re: [Json] Scope: Wire format or runtime format? Martin J. Dürst
Re: [Json] Scope: Wire format or runtime format? Martin J. Dürst
Re: [Json] Scope: Wire format or runtime format? Norbert Lindenberg
Re: [Json] Scope: Wire format or runtime format? John Cowan
Re: [Json] Scope: Wire format or runtime format? Martin J. Dürst
Re: [Json] Scope: Wire format or runtime format? Jorge