Re: Next Steps on JSON + Proposed TAG Resolution

Martin-

Totally understand and agree. The resolution below is just intended to get
consensus within the TAG on what we want to do, which we can then use to
craft a more substantive technical argument.

Dan


On 18/10/2013 07:09, ""Martin J. Dürst"" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> wrote:

>Hello Dan,
>
>I don't want to tell the TAG to take resolutions one way or another, but
>it would be good if there were some rationale or justification that came
>with the resolution. For the IETF, good arguments carry the day, not
>organizational positions.
>
>Regards,   Martin.
>
>On 2013/10/18 4:39, Appelquist Daniel (UK) wrote:
>> Hia folks --
>>
>> Thanks for being a part of today's call.
>>
>> Regarding our discussion today on JSON, which I though twas very
>>fruitful
>> in terms of clarifying the positions involved: it sounds like if we want
>> to influence the work in IETF that is imminently going to IETF last call
>> that we need to move quickly. I suggest that we should do so on the
>>basis
>> of a TAG resolution. In order to move quickly on this I would like to
>> suggest that we craft this resolution and approve it in email rather
>>than
>> waiting for the next f2f.
>>
>> My straw man proposed resolution is based on my suggestion which I heard
>> Doug Crockford also state and which also seemed to be echoed by
>>Philippe's
>> comments. It would read as follows:
>>
>> --
>> The TAG resolves to request that the IETF JSON working group amend the
>> current working draft of their JSON spec (rfc4627bis) to include a
>> normative reference to the appropriate ECMA published specification
>> (ECMA-404), and to clearly state that ECMA-404 is the authoritative
>> specification with regard to JSON grammar.
>> --
>>
>> Any comments?  Do you think that as a group we can reach consensus on
>>this
>> or a similarly worded resolution? If so then I think this could form the
>> basis for our collective action, including individual contributions to
>>the
>> IETF working group, a more fully fleshed out TAG statement on the topic
>> (to be crafted in a similar manner to our other working group feedback)
>> and potentially a liaison communication from the W3C to IETF along these
>> lines.
>>
>> Make sense?  Comments?
>> Dan
>>