Re: JSON feedback we could submit from Tim Bray on 2013-11-12 (www-tag@w3.org from November 2013)

From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 00:02:13 -0800
To: "Appelquist Daniel (UK)" <Daniel.Appelquist@telefonica.com>
Cc: "www-tag.w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>, "Nottingham, Mark" <mnotting@akamai.com>, "wsetlzer@w3.org" <wsetlzer@w3.org>, Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, "plh@w3.org" <plh@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CAHBU6is5KpD8Efr_5TWFzXYrRt6pxCfYZBe0oGpDV2YJLRQXHQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42 PM, Appelquist Daniel (UK) <
Daniel.Appelquist@telefonica.com> wrote:

>
>  The current state of affairs, where there are now two
> different JSON specifications, one developed in ECMA as ECMA-404 and one
> developed in IETF as RFC-4627 and in last call as RFC-4627bis is not ideal
>

Actually, there are currently four: json.org, RFC4627, ECMAscript 5.1, and
ECMA-404.  -T

Received on Tuesday, 12 November 2013 08:02:40 UTC