Re: [Json] Last call: JSON charter

[R S <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Mar 29, 2013, at 3:04 PM, Larry Masinter <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> > So if TC 39 asks nicely for a minor  change to the document that would
> > otherwise prevent  them from using the new RFC as a normative  reference
> --
> > even if the change makes no technical change to the specification --
> > such requests should be rejected because they aren't " minimal change" or
> > correcting errors?
>
> Strawman: wind. Can you give an example of a "minor change" that is not a
> "minimal change"? It's kind of hard to parse your objection to the proposed
> charter if you use vague hypotheticals like that. More directly: can you
> point to specific words in the proposed charter that indicate we would
> reject input from anyone about correcting errors?



I don't understand the concern here, either. The charter looks fine to me.



> > Anne van Kesteren:
> > "FWIW, XMLHttpRequest references TC39's version of JSON which is
> completely self-contained and without known errors. Not really sure why the
> IETF feels there's a need to publish that version independently."
>
> Anne is welcome (and in fact invited!) to read this mailing list for the
> answer to that.
>
> > at least some of the commenters wanted to make sure there was
> > only one JSON standard, not two.
>
> There are currently at least three that have differences: json.org, RFC
> 4627, and ECMAScript.



Aside from differences, RFC 4627 covers character sets, and ECMAScript does
not. It may be that an updated RFC should insist on whatever the union of
XMLHttpRequest and ES5 is. Even if that is the case, it is worth writing
down.

- Rob