IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Json] Radically changing 4627bis

Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com> Wed, 09 October 2013 22:24 UTC

Return-Path: <masinter@adobe.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 4091B21E8227 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 15:24:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 SYClPV78WnFS for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 15:23:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod6og126.obsmtp.com (exprod6og126.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1CF621E8242 for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 15:23:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outbound-smtp-1.corp.adobe.com ([192.150.11.134]) by exprod6ob126.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUlXXVjWx4nUnj9jrOAxxzL2Lm3wwfNGL@postini.com; Wed, 09 Oct 2013 15:23:28 PDT
Received: from inner-relay-1.corp.adobe.com ([153.32.1.51]) by outbound-smtp-1.corp.adobe.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id r99MJdiH009416; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 15:19:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SJ1SWM219.corp.adobe.com (sj1swm219.corp.adobe.com [10.5.77.61]) by inner-relay-1.corp.adobe.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id r99MNH6A026222; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 15:23:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com ([10.8.189.95]) by SJ1SWM219.corp.adobe.com ([fe80::d55c:7209:7a34:fcf7%11]) with mapi; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 15:23:17 -0700
From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, "Manger, James H" <james.h.manger@team.telstra.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 15:23:15 -0700
Thread-Topic: [Json] Radically changing 4627bis
Thread-Index: Ac7FLdiB+9AwKoe/QsyesFQBuv1TnwAD7a0A
Message-ID: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D3482260D4F@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com>
References: <20131008234810.28645.8207.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAHBU6isT8yv4-xf+cL0-RCdNu6DB=6G97MSaR7Z=F-Fz11BM3w@mail.gmail.com> <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E11531C3C187@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com> <E2C3B3A8-3897-44B4-8C9B-A784F63EED59@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <E2C3B3A8-3897-44B4-8C9B-A784F63EED59@vpnc.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] Radically changing 4627bis
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, 09 Oct 2013 22:24:05 -0000

If it's "no hat":
    are you saying you think ECMA-404 is unsuitable as a normative reference for 4627bis, because it's handling of Unicode semantics is incorrect? 
Is the problem technical or political?

(Number of emails on a subject is not a good metric of controversy, just of familiarity.)


> -----Original Message-----J
> From: json-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:json-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Paul
> Hoffman
> Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2013 1:26 PM
> To: Manger, James H
> Cc: json@ietf.org
> Subject: [Json] Radically changing 4627bis
> 
> <no hat>
> 
> On Oct 8, 2013, at 5:38 PM, "Manger, James H"
> <james.h.manger@team.telstra.com> wrote:
> 
> > But the publication of ECMA-404 means we should radically change 4627bis.
> > Lets do what ECMA-404 "Introduction" suggests other standards do:
> >
> >  It is expected that other standards will refer to this one, strictly
> >  adhering to the JSON text format, while imposing restrictions on various
> >  encoding details. Such standards may require specific behaviours. JSON
> >  itself specifies no behaviour.
> >
> > Lets reference ECMA-404 -- not repeating any of the syntax.
> > Define the media type.
> > Discuss the interop issues with surrogates, huge integers, decimal floats,
> duplicate names, comments, encodings.
> > Perhaps define terms such as "web-safe JSON" (for a subset of JSON) and
> "web-safe JSON parser" (for specific parser behaviour) that other specs using
> JSON can refer to.
> >
> > I guess this is close to Tim's "Internet JSON" or "I-JSON" proposal.
> > It is time to drop the minimal 4627 update.
> 
> A strong -1 on ripping out our syntax and pointing to ECMA-404. Our syntax
> matches their syntax, so there is not a conflict issue. ECMA-404 was supposed to
> be syntax-only, but they included semantics about Unicode (characters vs. code
> points) that were important enough to this WG to generate hundreds of
> messages on our mailing list. If we point to ECMA-404 for the syntax only, and
> add in our semantics on interoperability, there will then be a conflict that will
> have a negative effect on developers who are trying to create interoperable
> implementations.
> 
> --Paul Hoffman
> _______________________________________________
> json mailing list
> json@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email