Re: [Json] Comments on proposed charter for JSON

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Mon, 04 March 2013 18:57 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 8D4DC21F8DAE for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 10:57:14 -0800 (PST)
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 pVmzCFisnIwq for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 10:57:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BFCD21F8DAC for <json@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 10:57:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.20.30.90] (50-1-98-12.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.1.98.12]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r24Iv6kF046463 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 4 Mar 2013 11:57:06 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAChr6SxPfxi2r--zKcF2WHPPqSyJ0b01jK2gauE=pHJ4_ZdTCw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 10:57:05 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <0FD44EC8-2656-4F7B-B5F4-534131061E8B@vpnc.org>
References: <4F511CA8-1FC1-46AF-BC22-C64F2C63C052@vpnc.org> <A723FC6ECC552A4D8C8249D9E07425A70F8AF2FE@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com> <CAChr6SxPfxi2r--zKcF2WHPPqSyJ0b01jK2gauE=pHJ4_ZdTCw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robert Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
Cc: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, json@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Json] Comments on proposed charter for JSON
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion related to JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\)." <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: Mon, 04 Mar 2013 18:57:14 -0000

On Mar 1, 2013, at 12:47 PM, Robert Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com> wrote:

> I agree with Bjoern that the charter isn't specific enough wrt the delta between ES5 and the RFC.

I think the charter is specific enough...

> Adopting the changes in ES5 would seem to be the best way get consistency.

...while agreeing with you that adopting the changes in ECMAscript 5 is the best way to get consistency with the current deployed browsers, which seems like a reasonable target for our efforts.

I *do* want to see browser folks familiar with the ECMAscript spec to start working on a specific list of differences between it and RFC 4627. If y'all can do that before the BoF meeting next week, it will help the charter discussion.

> However, it sounds like some folks on this list would rather standardize a narrow RFC4267-derived update. I do not think that work would be valuable.

I'm not sure what that means. Adopting the changes in ECMAscript *is* a narrow RFC4267-derived update.

--Paul Hoffman