- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 09:50:14 +1100
- To: Appelquist Daniel (UK) <Daniel.Appelquist@telefonica.com>
- Cc: www-tag <www-tag@w3.org>, "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, "wseltzer@w3.org" <wseltzer@w3.org>, "plh@w3.org" <plh@w3.org>
On 21/11/2013, at 12:49 AM, Appelquist Daniel (UK) <Daniel.Appelquist@telefonica.com> wrote: > Please see below for some final proposed text for a liaison statement to > IETF regarding the issues we are discussing with JSON, as proposed by Mark > Nottingham last week. Thanks to Tim Bray and Martin Dürst for the Well, I said it was one of your options... > feedback which I think I’ve addressed. Let’s agree the final wording on > tomorrow’s TAG call after which I propose that we request the W3C liaison > (Wendy and / or Philippe) to ship to over to IETF (in addition to the > substantive cross-posted discussion currently going on). > > Thanks, > Dan > > -- > 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 which may be normatively referenced, 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 and could lead to confusion in the > industry. We believe that this could lead to interoperability issues. > Because the two specs vary slightly, we believe this could lead to > interoperability issues. > > For example, today there are JSON parsers (conforming to ECMA-404) that > can parse "42" (a JSON document consisting of a single integer). There are > also parsers (conforming to RFC 4627/draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-07) that > cannot parse "42" today, but they can be meaningfully upgraded to do so > too. This would not break applications using 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. This looks like a good expression of the concerns in the discussion I heard. Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 20 November 2013 22:50:43 UTC