- From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
- Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 11:45:40 -0700
- To: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>
- Cc: Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>, Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>, "Appelquist Daniel, (UK)" <Daniel.Appelquist@telefonica.com>, Douglas Crockford <douglas@crockford.com>
- Message-ID: <CAHBU6is6peAX9UVX9dd8gUknWsjQ39jxFp67LGq+tJG_afyKCA@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 8:07 AM, Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com> wrote: > Doug probably controls json.org, it could pretty easily be updated to > cite and link to 404. > Confession: Of all the different JSON descriptions, json.org is by far my favorite. It’s a brilliant little technical tutorial and I think partially responsible for JSON’s immense success. -T > > - The claim that a mini-spec rushed out in late 2013 without any > consultation outside an Ecma committee is the single canonical definition > for a ubiquitous Internet data format that’s been stable for over a decade: > Counter-intuitive and lacks supporting evidence. > > > > - The notion that any particular standards group has a claim to > “ownership” of JSON: Offensive, because JSON belongs to its community of > users. > > > > - Of the many specifications of JSON, I don’t think Ecma 404 is the > best. First, railroad diagrams are less helpful to implementers than ABNF. > Second, obvious mistakes like the first paragraph of section 9 don’t > inspire confidence that it’s received an adequate level of peer review. > Third, compared to EcmaScript 5.2 section 6, it lacks the careful attention > to detail about what it means by terms such as “character”, instead > asserting (surprisingly) that a string is a sequence of “Unicode code > points” which strictly speaking would disqualify {"a":"\uDEAD"} since > U+DEAD isn’t a code point; JSON as she are spoke allows “\uDEAD” and > trying to retroactively fix this is inappropriate. > > > > - There has been an IETF RFC for some number of years that defines the > term “JSON Text” and restricts its usage to arrays/objects. Implementors > have felt entitled to ship software based on that language and it’s hard to > justify either removing or ignoring it. > > > > - I hear arguments that unless everyone defers to one spec, it opens the > door to interoperability problems. I don’t believe them. JSON as it exists > has excellent interoperability and nobody is trying to change it. The ways > to avoid the small number of corner-case interop problems are well > understood (and carefully documented in the 4627bis draft). > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Appelquist Daniel (UK) < > Daniel.Appelquist@telefonica.com> 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 18:46:07 UTC