W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > October 2013

Re: Next Steps on JSON + Proposed TAG Resolution

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 14:07:12 +0200
To: "Appelquist Daniel (UK)" <Daniel.Appelquist@telefonica.com>
Cc: www-tag <www-tag@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>
Message-ID: <567269p6h9fkesmlnh5j468q77pkgm85oh@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
* Appelquist Daniel (UK) wrote:
>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.
>--

In the unlikely event that the IETF JSON Working Group decides to do the
latter, it would have to make ECMA-404 a normative reference; if it does
not, then it cannot make the document a normative reference, so there is
no point in specifically asking for a normative reference.

>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.

The IETF JSON Working Group is chartered to publish a specification for
the JSON on-the-wire format as a revision of RFC 4627 jointly with Ecma
International. That Ecma International has decided to publish a small
subset of such a specification, one that contradicts the definition of
"JSON Text" in RFC 4627 without justification and ignores many issues
identified in the course of developing draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis,
independently and without coordination with the JSON community, is
unfortunate.

I do not see how a request from the W3C TAG as the one above will
improve anything for the JSON community. The TAG's resources would be
better spent trying to unify the many subtly different JSON variants. A
useful start would be working with W3C's Web Applications Working Group
so their XMLHttpRequest specification does not define a JSON variant of
its own, possibly through coordinating with the IETF JSON WG. That would
be useful to the JSON community as it would avoid situations where some
content works fine with XMLHttpRequest but not with other processors.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 
Received on Friday, 18 October 2013 12:07:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:33:22 UTC