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

Re: JSON feedback we could submit

From: Appelquist Daniel (UK) <Daniel.Appelquist@telefonica.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 07:42:56 +0000
To: "www-tag.w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
CC: "Nottingham, Mark" <mnotting@akamai.com>, "wsetlzer@w3.org" <wsetlzer@w3.org>, "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, "plh@w3.org" <plh@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CEA7F51A.30163%daniel.appelquist@telefonica.com>
First of all, thanks to Martin for forwarding the last call note and
reminding us about the IETF participation model and the importance of
individual comments.  In addition to TAG members making individual
comments, we have also bee encouraged to facilitate an official liaison
statement.  In the interest of transparency I am posting this to our
public list but this is a draft and the official version of this statement
will be sent through the official liaison channel.

Please post comments here - as discussed I would like to finalize this
soon so we can get it sent over in a timely fashion.

My suggested DRAFT text for such a liaison (incorporating Anne’s example)
is as follows:

--

The W3C Technical Architecture Group has a concern regarding the ongoing
coordination of the industry standardization work on JSON.  JSON is a key
integration technology for Web applications and a key data interchange
format for the Web.  The current state of affairs, where there are now two
different JSON specifications, one developed in ECMA as ECMA-404 and one
developed in IETF as RFC-4627 and in last call as RFC-4627bis is not ideal
could lead to confusion in the industry.  We believe that this could lead
to interoperability issues.  The fact that the two specs vary slightly
underscores this concern.

For example, JSON parsers exists 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.

Regardless of the historical reasons for the current situation, the W3C
TAG believes that having one definition of JSON would be beneficial for
the Web and for the wider community of JSON implementors and JSON
consuming and producing applications.  We suggest that the IETF JSON
working group should re-enter discussions with ECMA TC39 in order to
facilitate aligning RFC-4627bis with the current ECMA-404 specification.

--


Dan

Received on Tuesday, 12 November 2013 07:44:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:59 UTC