Re: JSON: remove gap between Ecma-404 and IETF draft

To be clear, this is a Last Call comment on
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-07 The JSON Data
Interchange Format (draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-07).

On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote:
> To improve JSON interoperability the IETF should not define a more
> restricted version of JSON than defined by Ecma-404.
>
> Parsers exist that can parse "42" today and parsers that cannot parse
> "42" today can be meaningfully upgraded to do so too. This would not
> break those parsers, unless they depend on parsing 42 as an error,
> which is a far more unlikely scenario than parsing it as 42 given
> precedence.
>
> (Worth pondering about: what to do about a leading BOM, which
> XMLHttpRequest and browsers allow, but neither IETF nor Ecma-404
> allow.)


-- 
http://annevankesteren.nl/

Received on Tuesday, 12 November 2013 07:10:29 UTC