Re: [Json] Counterproposal on work items

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

>> I don't know. I think I'd be fine if we just asked Crockford (perhaps
>> helped by a willing editor) to do 4627bis and then have the AD sponsor
>> it on Standards Track.
>
> I did ask him.  I actually asked him about updating it even before I had
> heard about the JSON BoF.  He indicated that he is willing to work on it "as
> long as it does not break compatibility with existing implementations."
>
> As editor, I think he would be in a good position to ensure that his
> requirement is met.

Indeed; I had talked with him back in August, as well, with the same
response.  And as the likely responsible AD for any WG that forms, I
can say that I strongly agree with the "doesn't break compatibility"
point.  My view is that the charter has to make it clear that the
"4627 to Standards Track" work is essentially a re-classification in
place, rolling in errata and clarifications, but *not* changing the
language.  Any proposals that actually make changes would have to come
later, and be considered as separate work proposals.

Barry, Applications AD