- From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
- Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 17:47:38 -0500
- To: "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <jhildebr@cisco.com>
- Cc: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, es-discuss <es-discuss@mozilla.org>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>, JSON WG <json@ietf.org>
Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) scripsit: > I see Anne's input on the top-level grammar as interesting and useful. > I believe that we could choose to be reasonable here by changing > the ABNF: > > JSON-text = value > > and then adding text about interoperability in the same way that we > have approached numbers, strings, and duplicate keys. +1 for choosing to be reasonable. > If 404 doesn't allow [a BOM], I don't see a strong need to add it. > Parsers can always be more forgiving of what they will parse than what > the spec says, particularly since section 9 says "A JSON parser MAY > accept non-JSON forms or extensions". It's not clear that 404 disallows it, since 404 is defined in terms of characters, and a BOM is not a character but an out-of-band signal. -- John Cowan cowan@ccil.org http://ccil.org/~cowan This great college [Trinity], of this ancient university [Cambridge], has seen some strange sights. It has seen Wordsworth drunk and Porson sober. And here am I, a better poet than Porson, and a better scholar than Wordsworth, somewhere betwixt and between. --A.E. Housman
Received on Wednesday, 13 November 2013 22:48:05 UTC