Re: Next Steps on JSON + Proposed TAG Resolution

Wouldn’t you want consider the substantive technical arguments first, to
drive the consensus about what you want to do?  Perhaps I misunderstand.
 -T


On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 12:18 AM, Appelquist Daniel (UK) <
Daniel.Appelquist@telefonica.com> wrote:

> 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
> >>
>
>