W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > April 2011

Re: RDF-ISSUE-16 (Base JSON Grammar): What is the normative serialization of the JSON grammar? [RDF JSON]

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2011 19:57:11 +0100
Message-ID: <4D962007.7070608@webr3.org>
To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
CC: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Andy Seaborne wrote:
> 
> 
> On 25/03/11 13:53, RDF Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>>
>> RDF-ISSUE-16 (Base JSON Grammar): What is the normative serialization 
>> of the JSON grammar? [RDF JSON]
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/16
>>
>> Raised by: Manu Sporny
>> On product: RDF JSON
>>
>> There are currently three JSON grammar serializations, which one 
>> should this Working Group use as the basis for the RDF/JSON 
>> serialization:
>>
>>   * RFC4627: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4627.txt
>>   * ECMA-262 5th Edition: 
>> http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST/ECMA-262.pdf
>>   * json.org: http://json.org/
> 
> How do they differ?
> Are there real world examples of collisions?
> 
>> I assert that we should use RFC4627 because it is correct and simple 
>> for parser developers to read.
> 
> And because it defines application/json so it is the on-the-wire 
> definition.

Yes, for a +json media type I believe we'll need to reference RFC4627.

However, for practical considerations, such as multiple object member 
names (RFC4627 terms, object keys in ECMAScript 262 terms) bearing the 
same name, we may well be wise to consider those practical issues when 
defining RDF-JSON.

Best,

Nathan
Received on Friday, 1 April 2011 18:58:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:41 GMT