Will you also be citing ECMA-404 normatively to avoid this sort of divergence in the future? On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> wrote: > To do this, I think the draft requires these changes: > > - Remove the trailing section of section 1.2, starting with “ECMAscript > 5.1 enumerates...” [because the difference no longer exists] > > - In section 2: > > -- remove “A JSON text is a serialized object or array.” > > -- Insert: “A JSON text is a serialized value. Note that certain previous > specifications of JSON constrained a JSON text to be an object or an array. > Implementations which generate only objects or arrays where a JSON text is > called for will be interoperable in the sense that all implementations will > accept these as conforming JSON texts.” > > -- Change the JSON-text production to read: > > JSON-text = value > > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 10:21 AM, Matt Miller (mamille2) < > mamille2@cisco.com> wrote: > >> There appears to be consensus to change JSON-text to allow for any JSON >> value -- not just object / array -- while noting that object or array as >> the top-level is the most interoperable. >> >> We will ask the Document Editor to make this change to >> draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis. >> >> >> - Paul Hoffman and Matt Miller >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> json mailing list >> json@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json >> >> >
Received on Thursday, 28 November 2013 01:01:27 UTC