IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Json] Differences between RFC 4627 or the current ECMAScript specification

Tony Hansen <tony@att.com> Wed, 02 October 2013 20:41 UTC

Return-Path: <tony@att.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 9E27A21F9E6D for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 13:41:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.849
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.849 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.250, 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 k36dOtBwZcwU for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 13:41:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from flpi497.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (egssmtp02.att.com [144.160.128.166]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85E6121F9E96 for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 13:40:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dns.maillennium.att.com (maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by egssmtp02.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r92KeXal017945 for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 13:40:34 -0700
Received: from [135.91.110.247] (ds135-91-110-247.dhcps.ugn.att.com[135.91.110.247]) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with ESMTP id <20131002204033gw1009k12ae> (Authid: tony); Wed, 2 Oct 2013 20:40:33 +0000
X-Originating-IP: [135.91.110.247]
Message-ID: <524C84C0.3010502@att.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 16:40:32 -0400
From: Tony Hansen <tony@att.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jorge Chamorro <jorge@jorgechamorro.com>
References: <BF7E36B9C495A6468E8EC573603ED9411EF1BB0B@xmb-aln-x11.cisco.com> <CAChr6SyznBktmOLpT-EiZ5Nm_0jZ16M0tOo4aZ_jhSDb=HHDqg@mail.gmail.com> <23C96FBA-3419-4C97-A075-462F7443013A@vpnc.org> <CAHBU6is2WzCNCwa0PYMM1Hr3Lij0GxWkVtVUan9=JPbvv0YCZg@mail.gmail.com> <CAChr6Sw72kxm8qJiDu=XMnARCttQPc5GNRQaXz4Xw9y+6-3=Mg@mail.gmail.com> <421F79DF-0B88-4E24-8666-189228E6E189@vpnc.org> <524C73B7.1060104@att.com> <B372C5DB-2776-4921-9AF3-74051FAFD1DC@jorgechamorro.com>
In-Reply-To: <B372C5DB-2776-4921-9AF3-74051FAFD1DC@jorgechamorro.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: JSON WG <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] Differences between RFC 4627 or the current ECMAScript specification
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, 02 Oct 2013 20:41:35 -0000

On 10/2/2013 4:22 PM, Jorge Chamorro wrote:
> On 02/10/2013, at 21:27, Tony Hansen wrote:
>> ******
>> 1. Introduction
>>
>> JavaScript Object Notation (JSON)
> No, "JavaScript Object Notation" is *not* "JSON".
>
> JSON is based on, and a subset of, the JavaScript Object Notation.

I did not change that wording. It is what is in the current draft, and
in turn was copied directly from RFC 4627.

Feel free to argue, preferably in a different thread, for a change to
that sentence.

    Tony Hansen

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email