W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > October 2013

Re: Next Steps on JSON + Proposed TAG Resolution

From: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 15:09:15 +0900
Message-ID: <5260D08B.3000105@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
To: "Appelquist Daniel (UK)" <Daniel.Appelquist@telefonica.com>
CC: www-tag <www-tag@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>
Hello Dan,

I don't want to tell the TAG to take resolutions one way or another, but 
it would be good if there were some rationale or justification that came 
with the resolution. For the IETF, good arguments carry the day, not 
organizational positions.

Regards,   Martin.

On 2013/10/18 4:39, Appelquist Daniel (UK) wrote:
> Hia folks --
>
> Thanks for being a part of today's call.
>
> Regarding our discussion today on JSON, which I though twas very fruitful
> in terms of clarifying the positions involved: it sounds like if we want
> to influence the work in IETF that is imminently going to IETF last call
> that we need to move quickly. I suggest that we should do so on the basis
> of a TAG resolution. In order to move quickly on this I would like to
> suggest that we craft this resolution and approve it in email rather than
> waiting for the next f2f.
>
> My straw man proposed resolution is based on my suggestion which I heard
> Doug Crockford also state and which also seemed to be echoed by Philippe's
> comments. It would read as follows:
>
> --
> The TAG resolves to request that the IETF JSON working group amend the
> current working draft of their JSON spec (rfc4627bis) to include a
> normative reference to the appropriate ECMA published specification
> (ECMA-404), and to clearly state that ECMA-404 is the authoritative
> specification with regard to JSON grammar.
> --
>
> Any comments?  Do you think that as a group we can reach consensus on this
> or a similarly worded resolution? If so then I think this could form the
> basis for our collective action, including individual contributions to the
> IETF working group, a more fully fleshed out TAG statement on the topic
> (to be crafted in a similar manner to our other working group feedback)
> and potentially a liaison communication from the W3C to IETF along these
> lines.
>
> Make sense?  Comments?
> Dan
>
Received on Friday, 18 October 2013 06:10:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:33:22 UTC