Re: [Json] FYI ECMA, W3C, IETF coordination on JSON

From: Jorge Chamorro <jorge@jorgechamorro.com> · Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 22:06:21 +0200

On 08/10/2013, at 21:14, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote
> On 10/08/2013 11:43 AM, Jorge Chamorro wrote:
>> On 08/10/2013, at 20:26, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>> 
>>> The paragraph on numbers, see below, seems rather dangerous, as well as being incorrect.
>> Is it? Why?
>> 
> Well, for starters, interchanging non-integers can lead to loss of precision, which can be dangerous.  Further, interchanging numbers without some notion of the limits of the receiver is also dangerous.
> 
> Second, JSON does not only use sequences of digits to represent numbers, and there are many JSON numbers that cannot be represented as a sequence of base-ten digits.
> 
> Third, there are many numbers that humans interchange that cannot be represented as finite sequences of digits, even if you allow also a decimal point and a negative sign, for example 1/7, pi, and the square root of two.  (Perhaps the wording in the introduction is meant to allow infinite sequences of digits, but then using JSON for interchange is a bit difficult.)  My understanding is that limiting the representation of numbers to something like the JSON syntax is more of a computer thing than a human thing.

Ok, look: he's done -and very well- what he said should be done:

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Douglas Crockford <douglas@crockford.com>
> Date: 13 de junio de 2013 17:50:33 GMT+02:00
> To: "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>
> Subject: [Json] Two Documents
> content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
> 
> The confusion and controversy around this work is due to a mistake that I
> made in RFC 4627. The purpose of the RFC, which is clearly indicated
> in the title, was to establish a MIME type. I also gave a description of
> the JSON Data Interchange Format. My mistake was in conflating the two,
> putting details about the MIME type into the description of the format. My
> intention was to add clarity. That obviously was not the result.
> 
> JSON is just a format. It describes a syntax of brackets and commas that
> is useful in many contexts, profiles, and applications. JSON is agnostic
> about all of that stuff. JSON shouldn't even care about character encoding.
> Its only dependence on Unicode in the hex numbers used in the \u notation.
> JSON can be encoded in ASCII or EBCDIC or even Hollerith codes. JSON can
> be used in contexts where there is no character encoding at all, such as
> paper documents and marble monuments.
> 
> There are uses of JSON however in which such choices matter, and where
> behavior needs to be attached to or derived from the syntax. That is
> important stuff, and it belongs in different documents. Such documents
> will place necessary restrictions on JSON's potential. No such document
> can fit all applications, which causes much of the controversy we've seen
> here. One size cannot fit all. JSON the format is universal. But real
> applications require reasonable restrictions.
> 
> So we should be working on at least two documents, which is something we have
> discussed earlier. The first is The JSON Data Interchange Format, which is
> a simple grammar. The second is a best practices document, which recommends
> specific conventions of usage.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> json mailing list
> json@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json

ECMA-404 is simple, complete, easy to read and extremely clear: excellent.

-- 
( Jorge )();