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

Re: Next Steps on JSON + Proposed TAG Resolution

From: Appelquist Daniel (UK) <Daniel.Appelquist@telefonica.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 09:01:00 +0100
To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
CC: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>, www-tag <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CE86A74E.2E21D%daniel.appelquist@telefonica.com>
Hi Tim -

First of all, I am just trying to test what I think is already the consensus of the group and see if there are any dissenting opinions – so this is a chairing tactic to a certain extent. That's why I clearly signposted my resolution as a "straw man."

Secondly, I think many of the technical arguments emerged during yesterday's call – and I also understood that we need to move quickly so I am trying to fast track some TAG action on this if appropriate.

If it turns out that more TAG discussion is required on this then we may have to wait until next week's call.

Thanks,
Dan

From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com<mailto:tbray@textuality.com>>
Date: Friday, 18 October 2013 08:42
To: Daniel Appelquist <daniel.appelquist@telefonica.com<mailto:daniel.appelquist@telefonica.com>>
Cc: "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp<mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org<mailto:plh@w3.org>>, Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org<mailto:wseltzer@w3.org>>, www-tag <www-tag@w3.org<mailto:www-tag@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: Next Steps on JSON + Proposed TAG Resolution

Wouldn’t you want consider the substantive technical arguments first, to drive the consensus about what you want to do?  Perhaps I misunderstand.
 -T


On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 12:18 AM, Appelquist Daniel (UK) <Daniel.Appelquist@telefonica.com<mailto:Daniel.Appelquist@telefonica.com>> wrote:
Martin-

Totally understand and agree. The resolution below is just intended to get
consensus within the TAG on what we want to do, which we can then use to
craft a more substantive technical argument.

Dan


On 18/10/2013 07:09, ""Martin J. Dürst"" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp<mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>> wrote:

>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 08:01:44 UTC

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