I listed some arguments against this in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2013Oct/0041.html and at the moment I still believe them. Is there new information? On top of that, I have no fear of anyone trying to change JSON in the future; they would be resoundingly ignored by the community of implementers. I speak as one who would love to add built-in date/time literals but know that it won’t happen. -T On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>wrote: > 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 04:00:44 UTC