Re: [Json] Normative reference reasoning and logistics

["Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <[e-mail]>]

On 11/14/2015 11:10 AM, Tim Bray wrote:

[...]

> So, is there a *real* reason why a normative reference might be useful? I
> think there might be, and it's purely rhetorical (in the formal sense,
> designed to support an argument): To make it clear to the world that all JSON
> is the same JSON no matter where it's specified.  So I think it would be
> plausible to add the following to the second paragraph of section 1.2 of 7159
> (for convenience: http://rfc7159.net/rfc7159#rfc.section.1.2 ):
> 
> “The reference to ECMA-404 in the previous sentence is normative, not with the
> usual meaning that implementors need to consult it in order to understand this
> document, but to emphasize that there are no inconsistencies in the definition
> of the term “JSON text” in any of its specifications. Note, however, that
> ECMA-404 allows several practices which this specification recommends avoiding
> in the interests of maximal interoperability.”

I don't see any utility in making the reference normative, particularly if
wording along the lines of  "There are no differences in the definition
of the term ``JSON text'' between this specification and ECMA-404 [informative
reference].  There is no intent to allow the two specifications to diverge in
the future on what is allowable for JSON text." is in 7159bis.  This wording
seems to be adequate support for what I think everyone hopes is the case.

peter

PS:  Is there any formal definition for the railroad tracks in ECMA-404?