Re: [Json] REMINDER - WGLC Ends 2013-10-11

Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen@wirfs-brock.com> Fri, 11 October 2013 23:01 UTC

Return-Path: <allen@wirfs-brock.com>
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 A21FD21E80F0 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 16:01:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.500, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 qh7qhup02LYr for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 16:00:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org (mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org [204.13.248.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7122421E8084 for <json@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 16:00:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 069-064-236-244.pdx.net ([69.64.236.244] helo=[192.168.0.14]) by mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <allen@wirfs-brock.com>) id 1VUlhW-000DW6-VT; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 23:00:55 +0000
X-Mail-Handler: Dyn Standard SMTP by Dyn
X-Originating-IP: 69.64.236.244
X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@dyndns.com (see http://www.dyndns.com/services/sendlabs/outbound_abuse.html for abuse reporting information)
X-MHO-User: U2FsdGVkX19HdU+QktvuPVWWHDWlAnvoXlmC2C7VYJc=
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen@wirfs-brock.com>
In-Reply-To: <BF7E36B9C495A6468E8EC573603ED9411EF549AB@xmb-aln-x11.cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 16:00:48 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <CB150F21-4BE6-4DE6-BCA2-1DBDDCC3F86E@wirfs-brock.com>
References: <BF7E36B9C495A6468E8EC573603ED9411EF4E2DB@xmb-aln-x11.cisco.com> <BF7E36B9C495A6468E8EC573603ED9411EF549AB@xmb-aln-x11.cisco.com>
To: Matt Miller (mamille2) <mamille2@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085)
Cc: JSON WG <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] REMINDER - WGLC Ends 2013-10-11
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: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 23:01:01 -0000

We really should avoid having two (Ecma-404 and rfc4627bis) normative syntax specifications for JSON text.  Since it is claimed that the 4627bis ABNF recognizes the same language as that described by the Ecma-404 syntax diagrams it would seem more appropriate for 4627bis to narratively reference Ecma-404 and say that the 4627bis ABNF is an informative restatement of the Ecma-404 syntax specification. 

Notational preference really isn't a very good reason to have  two different normative definitions of the same thing. 

Allen Wirfs-Brock