- From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
- Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 22:49:41 -0500
- To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
- Cc: Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>, JSON WG <json@ietf.org>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>, es-discuss <es-discuss@mozilla.org>
Paul Hoffman scripsit: > If you believe that ECMA-404 will change in the future, that > would indicate that ECMA might break interoperability with current > implementations, even for what they perceive as "good reasons". In > general, the IETF tries not to have its long-lived standards normatively > latch on to moving targets for this very reason. Even when other SDOs > have assured us that they will not make backwards-incompatible changes, > they have done so anyway (cue the Klensin-esqe theme music...), and > that has caused serious interoperability problems for the IETF specs. Binding specifically to the first edition of ECMA-404 would resolve that problem. Binding to a specific edition doesn't work so well with Unicode, but that is because Unicode is a special case: it expands its coverage in successive editions to ever-larger portions of the world of writing systems. It would have been impossible to do the whole thing at once, unlike even the largest ordinary technical standard. ECMA-404 is not in that league. -- Not to perambulate John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org> the corridors http://www.ccil.org/~cowan during the hours of repose in the boots of ascension. --Sign in Austrian ski-resort hotel
Received on Thursday, 28 November 2013 03:50:04 UTC