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

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Sat, 12 October 2013 03:00 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
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 CA04611E8110 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 20:00:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 Dsf64IlMy9GD for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 20:00:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8BBA11E80E6 for <json@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 20:00:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.20.30.90] (50-0-66-41.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.0.66.41]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id r9C3028b059771 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 11 Oct 2013 20:00:03 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: hoffman.proper.com: Host 50-0-66-41.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.0.66.41] claimed to be [10.20.30.90]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <5258B2F4.6040502@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 20:00:01 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <53DB134A-7340-43FF-8DC3-8192A1F4395A@vpnc.org>
References: <BF7E36B9C495A6468E8EC573603ED9411EF4E2DB@xmb-aln-x11.cisco.com> <5258B2F4.6040502@cisco.com>
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
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: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 03:00:07 -0000

<hat on>

On Oct 11, 2013, at 7:24 PM, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> wrote:

> I have one unanswered technical question from earlier, when I wrote:
>> What I would suggest is that at the very least we understand the
>> differences, so that we know what we're getting into. 
>> 
> I think John Cowan answered this question in part in his mail of October 8th (Re: [Json] FYI ECMA, W3C, IETF coordination on JSON) by stating that  ECMA 404 is pretty much RFC 4627.  Therefore, so long as we have in the draft an accurate and up-to-date list of changes, then at least we know if we are introducing interoperability problems.  

There are no technical changes between RFC 4627 and this draft, other than the removal of the faulty sample regex in the Security Considerations.

There is one technical difference between RFC 4627 and ECMA-404: the definition of "JSON text" in section 1.2.

> Section 1.3 sort of does this, but should be cleaned up to be succinct and limited to TECHNICAL changes ONLY.  Other changes should be moved to the back.
> 
> The key differences, therefore, are as follows:
> 	• No specific version of unicode.
> 	• Specific language on duplicate members
> 	• Discussion of character model
> 	• IEEE numbers and number  ABNF

These are not technical differences between this draft and ECMAScript, nor between this draft and RFC 4627. They are helpful proposals to developers where none of the specs are clear enough to be sure.

--Paul Hoffman