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

Re: [Json] Response to Statement from W3C TAG

From: Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen@wirfs-brock.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 18:52:53 -0800
Cc: JSON WG <json@ietf.org>, www-tag@w3.org, "es-discuss@mozilla.org list" <es-discuss@mozilla.org>
Message-Id: <B86533F4-DEFB-47A0-A2A1-A92F9B9C0CBD@wirfs-brock.com>
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
(important typo correction in last paragraph) 
On Dec 10, 2013, at 3:08 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:

> * Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
>> On Dec 9, 2013, at 5:40 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
>>> If TC39 said ECMA-404 is going to be replaced by a verbatim copy of the
>>> ABNF grammar in draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-08 with pretty much no other
>>> discussion of JSON and a clear indication that future editions will not
>>> add such discussion, and will not change the grammar without IETF con-
>>> sensus, I would be willing to entertain the idea of making ECMA-404 a
>>> normative reference.
>> The second paragraph is speaking about the language described by the 
>> grammar, not the actual formalism used to express the grammar. I'm quite 
>> sure that there is no interest at all within TC39 to ever change the 
>> actual JSON language.  If you are looking for some sort of contractual 
>> commitment from ECMA, I suspect you are wasting your time. Does the IETF 
>> make such commitments?
> As you know, the charter of the JSON Working Group says
> The resulting document will be jointly published as an RFC and by
> ECMA. ECMA participants will be participating in the working group 
> editing through the normal process of working group participation.  
> The responsible AD will coordinate the approval process with ECMA so 
> that the versions of the document that are approved by each body are 
> the same.
> If things had gone according to plan, it seems likely that Ecma would
> have requested the IANA registration for application/json jointly lists
> the IETF and Ecma International has holding Change Control over it, and
> it seems unlikely there would have been much disagreement about that.
> It is normal to award change control to other organisations, for
> instance, RFC 3023 gives change control for the XML media types to the
> W3C. I can look up examples for jointly held change control if that
> would help.
> And no, I am not looking for an enforceable contract, just a clear
> formal decision and statement.

Obviously, the originally envisioned process broke down, but I don't think we need to discuss that right here, right now.

It isn't clear to me that TC39 is particularly interested in holding changing control for the application/json media type just like it apparently doesn't have change control for the application/ecmascript or application/javascript. In practice those registrations simply have not been of particular concern.  Maybe they should be.  Does anybody actually lookup the application/javascript media type actually think that the relevant reference is still Netscape Communications Corp., "Core JavaScript Reference 1.5", September 2000

TC39's concern seems to be both narrower (just the JSON syntax and static semantics, not wire encodings) and wider (implementations that aren't tied to the application/json media type) than the JSON WG's. I know that the TC39 consensus is that ECMA-404 (probably with some revision)  should be serviceable as a foundation for other specs that address other issues.

>> This doesn't mean that TC39 would necessarily agree to eliminate the 
>> Syntax Diagrams,  or that we wouldn't carefully audit any grammar 
>> contribution to make sure that it is describing the same language.  
>> There may also be minor issues that need to be resolved. But we seem to 
>> agree that we already are both accurately describing the same language 
>> so this is really about notational agreement.
> Having non-normative syntax diagrams in addition to the ABNF grammar
> would be fine if they can automatically be generated from the ABNF.
> I was talking about removing most of the prose, leaving only boiler-
> plate, a very short introduction, and references. Then it would be a
> specification of only the syntax and most technical concerns would be
> addressed on both sides. If you see this as a viable way forward, then
> I think the JSON WG should explore this option further.

I agree, this sounds plausible to me.

>> As a base line, ECMA-404 was created in less than a week.  It takes a 
>> couple months to push through a letter ballot to above a revised 
>> standard. 
> The RFC4627bis draft could be approved and be held for normatives re-
> ferences to materialise; this is not uncommon for IETF standards. It
> usually takes a couple of months for the RFC editor to process the
> document anyway, so personally a couple of months of waiting for a
> revised edition of ECMA-404 would be okay with me.

I don't see why we >shouldn't< be about to mutually resolve this. 


> -- 
> Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
> Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
> 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 
> _______________________________________________
> json mailing list
> json@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
Received on Wednesday, 11 December 2013 02:53:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:57:00 UTC