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 >>Received on Friday, 18 October 2013 07:19:19 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:59 UTC