- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2011 19:57:11 +0100
- 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 UTC