Re: [Json] Comments on proposed charter for JSON

Paul Hoffman <> Mon, 04 March 2013 18:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D4DC21F8DAE for <>; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 10:57:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pVmzCFisnIwq for <>; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 10:57:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BFCD21F8DAC for <>; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 10:57:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (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
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
From: Paul Hoffman <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2013 10:57:05 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <>
To: Robert Sayre <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
Cc: Barry Leiba <>,
Subject: Re: [Json] Comments on proposed charter for JSON
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion related to JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\)." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2013 18:57:14 -0000

On Mar 1, 2013, at 12:47 PM, Robert Sayre <> 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