From tony@att.com Tue Oct 1 06:33:16 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADEA211E81D4 for ; Tue, 1 Oct 2013 06:33:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.021 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.021 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.023, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_45=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nbPBG+zJvgNk for ; Tue, 1 Oct 2013 06:33:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from flpi497.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (egssmtp02.att.com [144.160.128.166]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5825111E81CC for ; Tue, 1 Oct 2013 06:32:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dns.maillennium.att.com (maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by egssmtp02.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r91DWR4f007472 for ; Tue, 1 Oct 2013 06:32:28 -0700 Received: from [135.70.176.59] (vpn-135-70-176-59.vpn.mwst.att.com[135.70.176.59]) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with ESMTP id <20131001133225gw1009k10le> (Authid: tony); Tue, 1 Oct 2013 13:32:27 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.70.176.59] Message-ID: <524ACEEB.7020609@att.com> Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2013 09:32:27 -0400 From: Tony Hansen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: JSON WG References: <23C96FBA-3419-4C97-A075-462F7443013A@vpnc.org> <0FA0EFFF-2109-4D78-8723-2ECD990C0F82@vpnc.org> <7058DBBD-9DCE-4A5C-B11D-5FC41A839407@vpnc.org> <5245A56D.4080205@att.com> <524761DD.7080102@att.com> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------000505020804030805030605" Subject: Re: [Json] Differences between RFC 4627 or the current ECMAScript specification X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2013 13:33:16 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------000505020804030805030605 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thank you Rob, I appreciate that additional bit of information. In that case, you were indeed required to remove your private extension in order to be compliant with the ECMAScript specification. My point remains though: this was a case of removing a private extension you had previously allowed in your parser; it was not something that was done because the JSON language itself was different. This may seem like it's splitting hairs to you, but knowing where we're both coming from is important so that we understand each other better. Tony Hansen On 10/1/2013 12:38 AM, R S wrote: > my implementation was used for ECMAScript JSON.parse. > > - Rob > > On Saturday, September 28, 2013, Tony Hansen wrote: > > On 9/27/2013 12:34 PM, R S wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 8:34 AM, Tony Hansen > > wrote: >> >> RFC 4627 does not allow trailing commas in objects. Nor does >> 4627-bis. >> >> >> RFC 4627 allows parsers to accept non-JSON if they wish, while >> ECMAScript does not allow this. > > Your claim was that you had to change your parser of JSON to no > longer allow trailing commas because of converting to parsing > ECMAScript. I disagree with that assessment. > > You had added your own non-standard extension to JSON (accepting > trailing commas) to your parser. Note that ECMA's restrictions on > parsers are only on implementations of ECMAScript. ECMA does NOT > say that *your* parser may not continue to accept trailing commas, > except in the specific case of your parser being used in an > implementation of ECMAScript's JSON.parse() function. That is, if > your function is not used in an implementation of JSON.parse(), > ECMA places no restrictions on it; it certainly is not restricted > in the same ways that ECMAScript's JSON.parse() is restricted. You > chose to remove that non-standard extension, but only because you > chose to *follow* the same restrictions as ECMAScript's JSON.parse(). > > Did the JSON spec say you could add your own extension to your > parser? Yes it did. However, if someone wrote JSON using a > trailing comma, they're going into non-interoperable territory. > > ECMA also extends 4627-JSON by accepting additional top-level > primitives. ECMA's JSON.parse() is still a 4627-JSON-compliant > parser because it properly interprets 4627-JSON. However, someone > writing JSON using ECMA's extensions will only safely be > interoperable with someone using ECMAScript's JSON.parse() or > another parser that's been similarly extended. But they aren't > interoperable with the many other JSON libraries that haven't been > similarly extended. > > Tony Hansen > > > > _______________________________________________ > json mailing list > json@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json --------------000505020804030805030605 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thank you Rob, I appreciate that additional bit of information. In that case, you were indeed required to remove your private extension in order to be compliant with the ECMAScript specification. My point remains though: this was a case of removing a private extension you had previously allowed in your parser; it was not something that was done because the JSON language itself was different.

This may seem like it's splitting hairs to you, but knowing where we're both coming from is important so that we understand each other better.

    Tony Hansen

On 10/1/2013 12:38 AM, R S wrote:
my implementation was used for ECMAScript JSON.parse.

- Rob

On Saturday, September 28, 2013, Tony Hansen wrote:
On 9/27/2013 12:34 PM, R S wrote:
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 8:34 AM, Tony Hansen <tony@att.com> wrote:
RFC 4627 does not allow trailing commas in objects. Nor does 4627-bis. 

RFC 4627 allows parsers to accept non-JSON if they wish, while ECMAScript does not allow this.

Your claim was that you had to change your parser of JSON to no longer allow trailing commas because of converting to parsing ECMAScript. I disagree with that assessment.

You had added your own non-standard extension to JSON (accepting trailing commas) to your parser. Note that ECMA's restrictions on parsers are only on implementations of ECMAScript. ECMA does NOT say that *your* parser may not continue to accept trailing commas, except in the specific case of your parser being used in an implementation of ECMAScript's JSON.parse() function. That is, if your function is not used in an implementation of JSON.parse(), ECMA places no restrictions on it; it certainly is not restricted in the same ways that ECMAScript's JSON.parse() is restricted. You chose to remove that non-standard extension, but only because you chose to *follow* the same restrictions as ECMAScript's JSON.parse().

Did the JSON spec say you could add your own extension to your parser? Yes it did. However, if someone wrote JSON using a trailing comma, they're going into non-interoperable territory.

ECMA also extends 4627-JSON by accepting additional top-level primitives. ECMA's JSON.parse() is still a 4627-JSON-compliant parser because it properly interprets 4627-JSON. However, someone writing JSON using ECMA's extensions will only safely be interoperable with someone using ECMAScript's JSON.parse() or another parser that's been similarly extended. But they aren't interoperable with the many other JSON libraries that haven't been similarly extended.

    Tony Hansen


_______________________________________________
json mailing list
json@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json

--------------000505020804030805030605-- From tbray@textuality.com Wed Oct 2 09:53:40 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF5BA21F93E1 for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 09:53:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.976 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oQvkXt-eF-au for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 09:53:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lb0-f179.google.com (mail-lb0-f179.google.com [209.85.217.179]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EAA721F9C38 for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 09:52:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lb0-f179.google.com with SMTP id x18so977730lbi.24 for ; Wed, 02 Oct 2013 09:52:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=CyvQG8AtYrRKWRGSg7MMwqY+9/P+WyCYWnjmhCjd0sI=; b=InSZU7jZJ3BRmNzahTopPyAz+U4QDZ++jrcgnhYkcXxKBqehkuRi1coYAFetG/qpbQ G2zLmb65rveQ2plNoQsfS1EDhevIILs49bgtIg4XS05Ei1B9SoXWrbj7EDtYTHi7k0ZX IZ+H7MKDhLsrRea8O40/S1H2kZfjIljzypLjZb3Qem+LJ5P2fE3kASVhNscsX3kh5ERk XPCJrWhAFBdfZPWAJiWFZ3vAMon9SPa9Oq/LAMx/zZOgfS/NcqVOFxDSem/kdcPK6F5x vyol2toDlRleIY1OuW6FNRFa66oJwxR8VDVvM+OWRCqfHm7EgAh/XoL6SpORc16zFrPu 6SDA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm1g7+zvVkoGdilawmkwphgnAl+vv82XVnwDvbzEaNxGHs9IIdJRv9RBhvWUw4STEKeWjvK MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.168.3 with SMTP id zs3mr3018453lbb.2.1380732749033; Wed, 02 Oct 2013 09:52:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.10.200 with HTTP; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 09:52:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [172.19.29.195] In-Reply-To: References: <23C96FBA-3419-4C97-A075-462F7443013A@vpnc.org> <52448254.5090209@cisco.com> Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 09:52:28 -0700 Message-ID: From: Tim Bray To: R S Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c33fe6093de204e7c4e5cf Cc: Carsten Bormann , Paul Hoffman , Eliot Lear , JSON WG Subject: Re: [Json] ECMA-262 normative? X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 16:53:40 -0000 --001a11c33fe6093de204e7c4e5cf Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 6:55 PM, R S wrote: > It is true for RFC 4627. That makes claims that JSON has nothing to do > with ECMAScript rather baseless, at least if one plays the part of spec > nerd. > > I think we should have a rationale for changing this, since we're not > supposed be changing things without being very careful. > Quoting from earlier in the thread: On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 7:47 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote: > Normative references specify documents that must be read to understand or implement the technology in the new RFC, or whose technology must be present for the technology in the new RFC to work. Sounds like a good rationale to me. > > - Rob > > _______________________________________________ > json mailing list > json@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json > > --001a11c33fe6093de204e7c4e5cf Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 6:55 PM, R S <= ;sayrer@gmail.com= > wrote:
It is true for RFC 4627. That makes claims that JSON has n= othing to do with ECMAScript rather baseless, at least if one plays the par= t of spec nerd.

I think we should have a rationale for changing this, s= ince we're not supposed be changing things without being very careful.<= /div>

Quoting from earlie= r in the thread:

On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 7:47 AM, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tz= i.org> wrote:

> Normative references specify documents that must be read to=20 understand or implement the technology in the new RFC, or whose=20 technology must be present for the technology in the new RFC to work.

Sounds like a good rationale to me.

=C2=A0

- Rob

_______________________________________________
json mailing list
json@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json


--001a11c33fe6093de204e7c4e5cf-- From cabo@tzi.org Wed Oct 2 10:01:29 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76E9821F9E1A for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 10:01:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GzBdkOmkwVhA for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 10:01:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B091621F936F for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 09:58:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r92GwWC2016080; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 18:58:32 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.217.105] (p54894EBD.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.137.78.189]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5CC295ED; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 18:58:32 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 18:58:30 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <23C96FBA-3419-4C97-A075-462F7443013A@vpnc.org> <52448254.5090209@cisco.com> To: Tim Bray X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) Cc: JSON WG , Paul Hoffman , Eliot Lear , R S Subject: Re: [Json] ECMA-262 normative? X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 17:01:29 -0000 On Oct 2, 2013, at 18:52, Tim Bray wrote: > Quoting from earlier in the thread: >=20 > On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 7:47 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote: >=20 > > Normative references specify documents that must be read to = understand or implement the technology in the new RFC, or whose = technology must be present for the technology in the new RFC to work. Just to re-inject a bit more context: I didn't write that. The IESG did, in their official statement of what references are = normative. Gr=FC=DFe, Carsten From tbray@textuality.com Wed Oct 2 10:25:57 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C927421F93FB for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 10:25:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.976 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oExfvLq3OeB8 for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 10:25:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lb0-f181.google.com (mail-lb0-f181.google.com [209.85.217.181]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D96B521F936F for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 10:20:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lb0-f181.google.com with SMTP id u14so1042721lbd.12 for ; Wed, 02 Oct 2013 10:20:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=Sk8Jlu2V2HHyFW66umaVReoGq61DttyLt4eehh+RUBA=; b=YUvsZSt2B/V4f3EY4lS1WLwXaCGh67YCAgi8m7S/rVOSmrkT0piJluHN2J8fDK6gFl VjzyHj7j3BFEMSeTL/QvRyojuISH+3veiRxigW2EaK3zdgTOW41b96U/r5jHJjJlaLNd 3umBSFU1wbuSgzoRfM9F16bc3sXr6en1dt/mxhRHmx3+inMjXYbKyOkHj1b6GKT1/vgZ u0yXWEQc/GqNpXtiL8dOaVZHmU2uGwRleiNGBxooZccTqWkhzDhH1/E6BrKlPKYARrWw i0TzLHEQxxX77GXZOyIpJy1RqINqtRi5HIk95hLNnIYYeXYMefWODXVO5s2btIJX2qXD LRwg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmVYNgVWcenZFLMzqBxGCxDYcybacrCAi8IfbguYAvgHk3u/lYOBPvV2RTSQQIxGJ/yUej0 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.77.134 with SMTP id s6mr2385713lbw.38.1380734450429; Wed, 02 Oct 2013 10:20:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.10.200 with HTTP; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 10:20:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [172.19.29.195] In-Reply-To: <23C96FBA-3419-4C97-A075-462F7443013A@vpnc.org> References: <23C96FBA-3419-4C97-A075-462F7443013A@vpnc.org> Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 10:20:50 -0700 Message-ID: From: Tim Bray To: Paul Hoffman Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3dfba727e6204e7c54a4a Cc: JSON WG Subject: Re: [Json] Differences between RFC 4627 or the current ECMAScript specification X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 17:25:58 -0000 --001a11c3dfba727e6204e7c54a4a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable So, I (blush) confess to never having read ECMA-262, which is what 4627 references. I thought I=E2=80=99d have a glance; I'm assuming that what I = want is: http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST-ARCH/ECMA-262,= %203rd%20edition,%20December%201999.pdf It turns out to be nontrivial to isolate the diffs between it and 4627; to start with, 262 does not contain any instances of either "JSON" nor "object notation=E2=80=9D. I guess if you look at 11.1 and squint your eyes and ig= nore the =E2=80=9Cthis=E2=80=9D, Identifier, and (Expression) variants, what=E2=80= =99s left over might be JSON more or less. Maybe. So, since the spec is >150 pages, and I=E2=80=99m a JavaScript journeyman a= t best, if there=E2=80=99s going to be a concise list of differences, someone who understands that spec is going to have to write it, with references into the spec. I suggest that if we don=E2=80=99t get such a proposal, this is = not a fatal flaw in RFC4627bis because actually nobody cares. If someone is inclined to do the work, it would improve our charter conformance but I=E2= =80=99m not sure it would really add much practical value to the spec. On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 11:36 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote= : > On Sep 26, 2013, at 10:31 AM, R S wrote: > > > Charter: > > > > > > All differences between RFC 4627 or the current ECMAScript > specification > will be documented in the new RFC. > > > > The ECMAScript specification allows primitives at the root level, > specifies exactly how to interpret numbers, and can handle " bit sequence= s > which cannot encode Unicode characters" just fine. > > > > Based on what we have learned in the last six months, it might be better > for this RFC *not* to do what the charter says. > > - TC39 is actively revising ECMAScript and it is not clear whether the > -bis draft of their version will be out first. > > - Some of what ECMAscript says about JSON is intertwingled with the > definition of ECMAscript, such as "exactly how to interpret numbers" > > I'm no longer sure that a long-lasting RFC interpreting parts of another > SDO's spec is a good idea. > > --Paul Hoffman > _______________________________________________ > json mailing list > json@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json > --001a11c3dfba727e6204e7c54a4a Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
So, I (blush) confess to never having read ECMA-262, = which is what 4627 references.=C2=A0 I thought I=E2=80=99d have a glance; I= 'm assuming that what I want is: http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST-= ARCH/ECMA-262,%203rd%20edition,%20December%201999.pdf

It turns out to be nontrivial to isolate the diffs between it and 4627;= to start with, 262 does not contain any instances of either "JSON&quo= t; nor "object notation=E2=80=9D.=C2=A0 I guess if you look at 11.1 an= d squint your eyes and ignore the =E2=80=9Cthis=E2=80=9D, Identifier, and (= Expression) variants, what=E2=80=99s left over might be JSON more or less. = Maybe.

So, since the spec is >150 pages, and I=E2=80=99m a JavaScript= journeyman at best, if there=E2=80=99s going to be a concise list of diffe= rences, someone who understands that spec is going to have to write it, wit= h references into the spec.=C2=A0 I suggest that if we don=E2=80=99t get su= ch a proposal, this is not a fatal flaw in RFC4627bis because actually nobo= dy cares.=C2=A0 If someone is inclined to do the work, it would improve our= charter conformance but I=E2=80=99m not sure it would really add much prac= tical value to the spec.


On Thu,= Sep 26, 2013 at 11:36 AM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>= wrote:
On Sep 26, 2013, at 10:31 AM, R S <sayrer@gmail.com> wrote:

> Charter:
> >
> > All differences between RFC 4627 or the current ECMAScript specif= ication > will be documented in the new RFC.
>
> The ECMAScript specification allows primitives at the root level, spec= ifies exactly how to interpret numbers, and can handle " bit sequences= which cannot encode Unicode characters" just fine.

<no hat>

Based on what we have learned in the last six months, it might be better fo= r this RFC *not* to do what the charter says.

- TC39 is actively revising ECMAScript and it is not clear whether the -bis= draft of their version will be out first.

- Some of what ECMAscript says about JSON is intertwingled with the definit= ion of ECMAscript, such as "exactly how to interpret numbers"

I'm no longer sure that a long-lasting RFC interpreting parts of anothe= r SDO's spec is a good idea.

--Paul Hoffman
_______________________________________________
json mailing list
json@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json

--001a11c3dfba727e6204e7c54a4a-- From sayrer@gmail.com Wed Oct 2 11:02:44 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1765A21F8E3D for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 11:02:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id h7bWXE0iGyo5 for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 11:02:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qa0-x22c.google.com (mail-qa0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c00::22c]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28E5821F995E for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 10:59:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qa0-f44.google.com with SMTP id j7so4570758qaq.3 for ; Wed, 02 Oct 2013 10:59:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=vdgC1Zv5X6p4x0BKhKfW2vR+vfPiE5Ugic4vZYnj3xM=; b=UO5VzxkoEa3JRszhn+5IUidi4O8Bay9fHqavgezxqnC2s3rAo351w0CSTu9vv5V7wQ ixHUn1qwGqeJD0IXpSNhgOmC0vCSx+YgBVpVhUV/zM3kut/kqJjce00mktDi2D03kgAG 2yl+oWAY9BPN7R0rk/7YJDYQhBQIdu8LFdwd1vO6LM3gahInI+JFclqqt0hxS4mHl/4O xkqNYJ3wBsGjppstF5UzqRJ2mjVpus5+U7Pvd+YcuFEOizHZbf/R2Ue+boAcKkdV8Vlj byM27ws8FwhUZMUbiCFWCA5lCjS8DZNTg3/NuymP8sTeiTXUAp0+6OpKwbDvnoIMPCIC WjQw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.49.132.233 with SMTP id ox9mr4637989qeb.36.1380736771130; Wed, 02 Oct 2013 10:59:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.140.86.147 with HTTP; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 10:59:31 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <23C96FBA-3419-4C97-A075-462F7443013A@vpnc.org> Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 10:59:31 -0700 Message-ID: From: R S To: Tim Bray Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bdc7ffac58ff004e7c5d460 Cc: Paul Hoffman , JSON WG Subject: Re: [Json] Differences between RFC 4627 or the current ECMAScript specification X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 18:02:44 -0000 --047d7bdc7ffac58ff004e7c5d460 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ECMAScript 5.1 contains JSON: http://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/5.1/#sec-15.12 http://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/5.1/#sec-A.8' - Rob On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Tim Bray wrote: > So, I (blush) confess to never having read ECMA-262, which is what 4627 > references. I thought I=92d have a glance; I'm assuming that what I want= is: > http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST-ARCH/ECMA-26= 2,%203rd%20edition,%20December%201999.pdf > > It turns out to be nontrivial to isolate the diffs between it and 4627; t= o > start with, 262 does not contain any instances of either "JSON" nor "obje= ct > notation=94. I guess if you look at 11.1 and squint your eyes and ignore= the > =93this=94, Identifier, and (Expression) variants, what=92s left over mig= ht be > JSON more or less. Maybe. > > So, since the spec is >150 pages, and I=92m a JavaScript journeyman at be= st, > if there=92s going to be a concise list of differences, someone who > understands that spec is going to have to write it, with references into > the spec. I suggest that if we don=92t get such a proposal, this is not = a > fatal flaw in RFC4627bis because actually nobody cares. If someone is > inclined to do the work, it would improve our charter conformance but I= =92m > not sure it would really add much practical value to the spec. > > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 11:36 AM, Paul Hoffman wro= te: > >> On Sep 26, 2013, at 10:31 AM, R S wrote: >> >> > Charter: >> > > >> > > All differences between RFC 4627 or the current ECMAScript >> specification > will be documented in the new RFC. >> > >> > The ECMAScript specification allows primitives at the root level, >> specifies exactly how to interpret numbers, and can handle " bit sequenc= es >> which cannot encode Unicode characters" just fine. >> >> >> >> Based on what we have learned in the last six months, it might be better >> for this RFC *not* to do what the charter says. >> >> - TC39 is actively revising ECMAScript and it is not clear whether the >> -bis draft of their version will be out first. >> >> - Some of what ECMAscript says about JSON is intertwingled with the >> definition of ECMAscript, such as "exactly how to interpret numbers" >> >> I'm no longer sure that a long-lasting RFC interpreting parts of another >> SDO's spec is a good idea. >> >> --Paul Hoffman >> _______________________________________________ >> json mailing list >> json@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json >> > > > _______________________________________________ > json mailing list > json@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json > > On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Tim Bray wrote: > So, I (blush) confess to never having read ECMA-262, which is what 4627 > references. I thought I=92d have a glance; I'm assuming that what I want= is: > http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST-ARCH/ECMA-26= 2,%203rd%20edition,%20December%201999.pdf > > It turns out to be nontrivial to isolate the diffs between it and 4627; t= o > start with, 262 does not contain any instances of either "JSON" nor "obje= ct > notation=94. I guess if you look at 11.1 and squint your eyes and ignore= the > =93this=94, Identifier, and (Expression) variants, what=92s left over mig= ht be > JSON more or less. Maybe. > > So, since the spec is >150 pages, and I=92m a JavaScript journeyman at be= st, > if there=92s going to be a concise list of differences, someone who > understands that spec is going to have to write it, with references into > the spec. I suggest that if we don=92t get such a proposal, this is not = a > fatal flaw in RFC4627bis because actually nobody cares. If someone is > inclined to do the work, it would improve our charter conformance but I= =92m > not sure it would really add much practical value to the spec. > > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 11:36 AM, Paul Hoffman wro= te: > >> On Sep 26, 2013, at 10:31 AM, R S wrote: >> >> > Charter: >> > > >> > > All differences between RFC 4627 or the current ECMAScript >> specification > will be documented in the new RFC. >> > >> > The ECMAScript specification allows primitives at the root level, >> specifies exactly how to interpret numbers, and can handle " bit sequenc= es >> which cannot encode Unicode characters" just fine. >> >> >> >> Based on what we have learned in the last six months, it might be better >> for this RFC *not* to do what the charter says. >> >> - TC39 is actively revising ECMAScript and it is not clear whether the >> -bis draft of their version will be out first. >> >> - Some of what ECMAscript says about JSON is intertwingled with the >> definition of ECMAscript, such as "exactly how to interpret numbers" >> >> I'm no longer sure that a long-lasting RFC interpreting parts of another >> SDO's spec is a good idea. >> >> --Paul Hoffman >> _______________________________________________ >> json mailing list >> json@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json >> > > > _______________________________________________ > json mailing list > json@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json > > --047d7bdc7ffac58ff004e7c5d460 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
ECMAScript 5.1 contains JSON:

http://www.e= cma-international.org/ecma-262/5.1/#sec-15.12

http://www.e= cma-international.org/ecma-262/5.1/#sec-A.8'

- Rob
=

On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Tim Bra= y <tbray@textuality.com> wrote:
So, I (blush) confess to never havin= g read ECMA-262, which is what 4627 references.=A0 I thought I=92d have a g= lance; I'm assuming that what I want is: http://www.ecma-international.org/p= ublications/files/ECMA-ST-ARCH/ECMA-262,%203rd%20edition,%20December%201999= .pdf

It turns out to be nontrivial to isolate the diffs between it and 4627;= to start with, 262 does not contain any instances of either "JSON&quo= t; nor "object notation=94.=A0 I guess if you look at 11.1 and squint = your eyes and ignore the =93this=94, Identifier, and (Expression) variants,= what=92s left over might be JSON more or less. Maybe.

So, since the spec is >150 pages, and I=92m a JavaScript journ= eyman at best, if there=92s going to be a concise list of differences, some= one who understands that spec is going to have to write it, with references= into the spec.=A0 I suggest that if we don=92t get such a proposal, this i= s not a fatal flaw in RFC4627bis because actually nobody cares.=A0 If someo= ne is inclined to do the work, it would improve our charter conformance but= I=92m not sure it would really add much practical value to the spec.


On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 11:36 AM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffma= n@vpnc.org> wrote:
On Sep 26, 2013, at 10:31 AM,= R S <sayrer@gmail= .com> wrote:

> Charter:
> >
> > All differences between RFC 4627 or the current ECMAScript specif= ication > will be documented in the new RFC.
>
> The ECMAScript specification allows primitives at the root level, spec= ifies exactly how to interpret numbers, and can handle " bit sequences= which cannot encode Unicode characters" just fine.

<no hat>

Based on what we have learned in the last six months, it might be better fo= r this RFC *not* to do what the charter says.

- TC39 is actively revising ECMAScript and it is not clear whether the -bis= draft of their version will be out first.

- Some of what ECMAscript says about JSON is intertwingled with the definit= ion of ECMAscript, such as "exactly how to interpret numbers"

I'm no longer sure that a long-lasting RFC interpreting parts of anothe= r SDO's spec is a good idea.

--Paul Hoffman
_______________________________________________
json mailing list
json@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json


_______________________________________________
json mailing list
json@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json




<= div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Tim Bray <tb= ray@textuality.com> wrote:
So, I (blush) confess = to never having read ECMA-262, which is what 4627 references.=A0 I thought = I=92d have a glance; I'm assuming that what I want is: http://www.ecma-inter= national.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST-ARCH/ECMA-262,%203rd%20edition,%20D= ecember%201999.pdf

It turns out to be nontrivial to isolate the diffs between it and 4627;= to start with, 262 does not contain any instances of either "JSON&quo= t; nor "object notation=94.=A0 I guess if you look at 11.1 and squint = your eyes and ignore the =93this=94, Identifier, and (Expression) variants,= what=92s left over might be JSON more or less. Maybe.

So, since the spec is >150 pages, and I=92m a JavaScript journ= eyman at best, if there=92s going to be a concise list of differences, some= one who understands that spec is going to have to write it, with references= into the spec.=A0 I suggest that if we don=92t get such a proposal, this i= s not a fatal flaw in RFC4627bis because actually nobody cares.=A0 If someo= ne is inclined to do the work, it would improve our charter conformance but= I=92m not sure it would really add much practical value to the spec.


On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 11:36 AM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffma= n@vpnc.org> wrote:
On Sep 26, 2013= , at 10:31 AM, R S <sayrer@gmail.com> wrote:

> Charter:
> >
> > All differences between RFC 4627 or the current ECMAScript specif= ication > will be documented in the new RFC.
>
> The ECMAScript specification allows primitives at the root level, spec= ifies exactly how to interpret numbers, and can handle " bit sequences= which cannot encode Unicode characters" just fine.

<no hat>

Based on what we have learned in the last six months, it might be better fo= r this RFC *not* to do what the charter says.

- TC39 is actively revising ECMAScript and it is not clear whether the -bis= draft of their version will be out first.

- Some of what ECMAscript says about JSON is intertwingled with the definit= ion of ECMAscript, such as "exactly how to interpret numbers"

I'm no longer sure that a long-lasting RFC interpreting parts of anothe= r SDO's spec is a good idea.

--Paul Hoffman
_______________________________________________
json mailing list
json@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json


_______________________________________________
json mailing list
json@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json


--047d7bdc7ffac58ff004e7c5d460-- From derhoermi@gmx.net Wed Oct 2 11:09:09 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B153421F9D7D for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 11:09:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Bo3VbNv2G1ML for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 11:08:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0220421F9CBF for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 11:06:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from netb.Speedport_W_700V ([91.35.61.34]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx103) with ESMTPA (Nemesis) id 0MAy40-1VZ6Jb1qM8-009yh7 for ; Wed, 02 Oct 2013 20:06:45 +0200 From: Bjoern Hoehrmann To: Tim Bray Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 20:06:33 +0200 Message-ID: References: <23C96FBA-3419-4C97-A075-462F7443013A@vpnc.org> In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 3.3/32.846 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:zcGTD/nY8LQzJiVIObNrSzc39V2TPiZU6iK2MtkvAHqFjlDebOp 9ARcCgBkUhEGbFA6B3hZVKQ6IZ1muzdCxoC6GNzaW7JZN8XHi5hlRVUxmEIsAmQQPuB2icX aGpuA+kzbvJow62uKvRd9QFqGrYRp/0cQX7W9zMAt0Bl4SQskwyAQzAmWvp3Vdmek9mKfii 68fdtqNbBru7pNytAMbhQ== Cc: JSON WG Subject: Re: [Json] Differences between RFC 4627 or the current ECMAScript specification X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 18:09:10 -0000 * Tim Bray wrote: >So, I (blush) confess to never having read ECMA-262, which is what 4627 >references. I thought I’d have a glance; I'm assuming that what I want is: >http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST-ARCH/ECMA-262,%203rd%20edition,%20December%201999.pdf The JSON object was introduced in the 5th edition of the specification, while you have the third edition from 1999. The current edition is 5.1, http://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/5.1/#sec-15.12 with the JSON object in section 15.12 as linked. -- 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/ From tbray@textuality.com Wed Oct 2 11:31:23 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF3C921F9EED for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 11:31:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.976 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fxvDTc1LJcU1 for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 11:31:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-la0-f53.google.com (mail-la0-f53.google.com [209.85.215.53]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BA7821F8793 for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 11:26:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-la0-f53.google.com with SMTP id el20so991769lab.40 for ; Wed, 02 Oct 2013 11:26:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=Az005a5eKCAYVaCpuGGDE5x47bNNg3LQlDjMbMNbWFs=; b=ir6ys6BUmFopAdD6RaDf2dsNGN2v05+c0TZBt8wZ740e8jbGzX+kvDoGgOfCj7Rw7F NXVlqmSUgelXHfONR6NIvaZV8nnlXDJah4WB9KEZ2MpjscUA0HBy6Pybvn/d9vO0C6AX K71L6ZGv/VKvanJRSj3Mg8aQi+EWEyYJdJ4m1FAf8hsBAWlv4FjQaxSUCgIwe09935Hj OCNHVwtr4Fk7K7fI78lxLQX2cKqoiDmRcNBtZZ7a4wd6kB04SB+wnGK8EVtpo6sUppge a1JHSCz/0lwxInxd0D/9chagARORkXAHjAuVE95useLLq3kOODP/tEwnT3VNb8YZnuQY JQ1A== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkROpPDhpInVgTYWVPA9hRDIihQpxRJyzKnFFvTah2TmUpnbLMAp79jzLOCpIpntYquNu3Q MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.87.143 with SMTP id ay15mr3108733lab.2.1380738374226; Wed, 02 Oct 2013 11:26:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.10.200 with HTTP; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 11:26:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [172.19.29.195] In-Reply-To: References: <23C96FBA-3419-4C97-A075-462F7443013A@vpnc.org> Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 11:26:14 -0700 Message-ID: From: Tim Bray To: Bjoern Hoehrmann Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2409c52e07204e7c63421 Cc: JSON WG Subject: Re: [Json] Differences between RFC 4627 or the current ECMAScript specification X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 18:31:24 -0000 --001a11c2409c52e07204e7c63421 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hah, so at least the reference in the -bis needs to be fixed. On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:06 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote= : > * Tim Bray wrote: > >So, I (blush) confess to never having read ECMA-262, which is what 4627 > >references. I thought I=E2=80=99d have a glance; I'm assuming that what= I want > is: > > > http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST-ARCH/ECMA-26= 2,%203rd%20edition,%20December%201999.pdf > > The JSON object was introduced in the 5th edition of the specification, > while you have the third edition from 1999. The current edition is 5.1, > http://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/5.1/#sec-15.12 with the JSON > object in section 15.12 as linked. > -- > Bj=C3=B6rn H=C3=B6hrmann =C2=B7 mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de =C2=B7 http://= bjoern.hoehrmann.de > Am Badedeich 7 =C2=B7 Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 =C2=B7 http://www.bjoern= sworld.de > 25899 Dageb=C3=BCll =C2=B7 PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 =C2=B7 http://www.w= ebsitedev.de/ > --001a11c2409c52e07204e7c63421 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hah, so at least the reference in the -bis needs to be fix= ed.


= On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:06 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net&g= t; wrote:
* Tim Bray wrote:
>So, I (blush) confess to never having read ECMA-262, which is what 4627=
>references. =C2=A0I thought I=E2=80=99d have a glance; I'm assuming= that what I want is:
>h= ttp://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST-ARCH/ECMA-262,%= 203rd%20edition,%20December%201999.pdf

The JSON object was introduced in the 5th edition of the specificatio= n,
while you have the third edition from 1999. The current edition is 5.1,
http://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/5.1/#sec-15.12 = with the JSON
object in section 15.12 as linked.
--
Bj=C3=B6rn H=C3=B6hrmann =C2=B7 mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de =C2=B7 http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 =C2=B7 Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 =C2=B7 http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dageb=C3=BCll =C2=B7 PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 =C2=B7 http://www.websitedev.de/

--001a11c2409c52e07204e7c63421-- From tbray@textuality.com Wed Oct 2 11:37:03 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BDD421F9D96 for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 11:37:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.976 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EW1sQDS4ks0J for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 11:36:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lb0-f176.google.com (mail-lb0-f176.google.com [209.85.217.176]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 774DF21F9EED for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 11:31:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lb0-f176.google.com with SMTP id y6so1085344lbh.7 for ; Wed, 02 Oct 2013 11:31:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=fScTGU5OeW7m/vkvgahGmKnid7jTH/yU1NyGXfXBAh0=; b=YEFlLECN+/Gy0j9346h9JZRy5lgANFKwp6EstpR9RO5e+NwVpYN17vvyKTRu8wm1KT CKEJEtf4eR4Q1bT+MvDqmUkC9ExPKmSk/ID6gVMGjVgcM+60jSErJDpeCjdL3QY8slNc 0PUINEG7i+HuWMM83DC7SG46ho7pPkJDbQFkDGVr2z86YF3V6JPLqO0YDHKME5G+JY+1 fvh79lIMqj5p2ITz31bb07eKSIw18kOxHS+anmxbkFya7jFYhD6a+LYC4+nkI3oZ3Orl H5hnlOlEH3VJ176N9Uv0NLbVqA1MNrBzPWB+MwdKXKj9ZMiPZghVMm5wX+vhbfHTAhIQ arZw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk/pEvUlFyTRAIr2GgRMsMGvIIVsmvqRe9mOJlp6N4FXVH6ZTJVPDNq8wU/T550V0suZTNX MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.115.242 with SMTP id jr18mr2562862lab.40.1380738679441; Wed, 02 Oct 2013 11:31:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.10.200 with HTTP; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 11:31:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [172.19.29.195] In-Reply-To: References: <23C96FBA-3419-4C97-A075-462F7443013A@vpnc.org> Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 11:31:19 -0700 Message-ID: From: Tim Bray To: Bjoern Hoehrmann Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3327a841b1004e7c64644 Cc: JSON WG Subject: Re: [Json] Differences between RFC 4627 or the current ECMAScript specification X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 18:37:03 -0000 --001a11c3327a841b1004e7c64644 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable So, would it be enough to: - update the informative reference to point to 5.1 - Have a note that there are differences, with a pointer to section 15.12? I think 15.12 does a good job of describing them. The other stuff Rob mentioned gives details of how javascript implementations have to parse JSON instances, which I don=E2=80=99t think the -bis needs to care about. On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:06 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote= : > * Tim Bray wrote: > >So, I (blush) confess to never having read ECMA-262, which is what 4627 > >references. I thought I=E2=80=99d have a glance; I'm assuming that what= I want > is: > > > http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST-ARCH/ECMA-26= 2,%203rd%20edition,%20December%201999.pdf > > The JSON object was introduced in the 5th edition of the specification, > while you have the third edition from 1999. The current edition is 5.1, > http://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/5.1/#sec-15.12 with the JSON > object in section 15.12 as linked. > -- > Bj=C3=B6rn H=C3=B6hrmann =C2=B7 mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de =C2=B7 http://= bjoern.hoehrmann.de > Am Badedeich 7 =C2=B7 Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 =C2=B7 http://www.bjoern= sworld.de > 25899 Dageb=C3=BCll =C2=B7 PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 =C2=B7 http://www.w= ebsitedev.de/ > --001a11c3327a841b1004e7c64644 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
So, would it be enough to:
- update the= informative reference to point to 5.1
- Have a note that there ar= e differences, with a pointer to section 15.12?=C2=A0

I think 15.12= does a good job of describing them.=C2=A0 The other stuff Rob mentioned gi= ves details of how javascript implementations have to parse JSON instances,= which I don=E2=80=99t think the -bis needs to care about.


On Wed,= Oct 2, 2013 at 11:06 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote:
* Tim Bray wrote:
>So, I (blush) confess to never having read ECMA-262, which is what 4627=
>references. =C2=A0I thought I=E2=80=99d have a glance; I'm assuming= that what I want is:
>h= ttp://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST-ARCH/ECMA-262,%= 203rd%20edition,%20December%201999.pdf

The JSON object was introduced in the 5th edition of the specificatio= n,
while you have the third edition from 1999. The current edition is 5.1,
http://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/5.1/#sec-15.12 = with the JSON
object in section 15.12 as linked.
--
Bj=C3=B6rn H=C3=B6hrmann =C2=B7 mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de =C2=B7 http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 =C2=B7 Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 =C2=B7 http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dageb=C3=BCll =C2=B7 PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 =C2=B7 http://www.websitedev.de/

--001a11c3327a841b1004e7c64644-- From cabo@tzi.org Wed Oct 2 11:39:51 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74CC821F9EED for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 11:39:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GCttm+fWRbN0 for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 11:39:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80AFF21F9767 for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 11:34:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r92IYTG4022521; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 20:34:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.217.105] (p54894EBD.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.137.78.189]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2487E632; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 20:34:29 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 20:34:28 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <23C96FBA-3419-4C97-A075-462F7443013A@vpnc.org> To: Tim Bray X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) Cc: Paul Hoffman , JSON WG Subject: Re: [Json] Differences between RFC 4627 or the current ECMAScript specification X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 18:39:51 -0000 On Oct 2, 2013, at 19:20, Tim Bray wrote: > So, I (blush) confess to never having read ECMA-262, which is what = 4627 references. I thought I=92d have a glance; I'm assuming that what = I want is: = http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST-ARCH/ECMA-262= ,%203rd%20edition,%20December%201999.pdf That version defines a language that we usually call JavaScript, which = includes a literal notation for JavaScript objects and arrays. The = latter notation can be called JavaScript Object Notation. JSON used that literal notation as an inspiration (and as a way to = minimize bikeshedding), but is otherwise not dependent on that standard. The fact that the acronym JSON was built from the long form "JavaScript = Object Notation" causes no end of confusion, including the impression = that JSON is still somehow tied to JavaScript. That's why it is important to add an RFC editor note that explains that = we don't want to expand "JSON" in the title of the document, which = otherwise inevitably will happen. Of course, the 1999 edition of ECMAScript is still the edition that = should be cited to explain the historical JavaScript roots of JSON. If a comparison between JSON and the format implemented by the "JSON" = object in newer versions of ECMAScript is desired, we first need to = choose a stable version of ECMAScript that already includes the = JavaScript "JSON" object. I have no opinion which one that should be. Gr=FC=DFe, Carsten From paul.hoffman@vpnc.org Wed Oct 2 11:55:05 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 989DF21F9E96 for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 11:55:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bvvF7ch1X27b for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 11:54:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E05B21F9901 for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 11:50:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [165.227.249.247] (sn80.proper.com [75.101.18.80]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.7/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r92IoQf8028686 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 2 Oct 2013 11:50:26 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: hoffman.proper.com: Host sn80.proper.com [75.101.18.80] claimed to be [165.227.249.247] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) From: Paul Hoffman In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 11:50:25 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <421F79DF-0B88-4E24-8666-189228E6E189@vpnc.org> References: <23C96FBA-3419-4C97-A075-462F7443013A@vpnc.org> To: R S X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) Cc: JSON WG Subject: Re: [Json] Differences between RFC 4627 or the current ECMAScript specification X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 18:55:06 -0000 On Oct 2, 2013, at 10:59 AM, R S wrote: > ECMAScript 5.1 contains JSON Are you saying we should change the reference that was in RFC 4627? Or = that we should leave the old reference but create a section on = differences that points to 5.1? --Paul Hoffman= From tony@att.com Wed Oct 2 12:38:33 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D7FC21F9E44 for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 12:38:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZTqqc0LMdR3Y for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 12:38:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from flpi406.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (egssmtp03.att.com [144.160.128.152]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB06E21F9EB6 for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 12:27:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailgw1.maillennium.att.com (maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by egssmtp03.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r92JRp4Z020084 for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 12:27:54 -0700 Received: from [135.91.110.247] (ds135-91-110-247.dhcps.ugn.att.com[135.91.110.247]) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with ESMTP id <20131002192751gw1009k123e> (Authid: tony); Wed, 2 Oct 2013 19:27:51 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.91.110.247] Message-ID: <524C73B7.1060104@att.com> Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 15:27:51 -0400 From: Tony Hansen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: JSON WG References: <23C96FBA-3419-4C97-A075-462F7443013A@vpnc.org> <421F79DF-0B88-4E24-8666-189228E6E189@vpnc.org> In-Reply-To: <421F79DF-0B88-4E24-8666-189228E6E189@vpnc.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Json] Differences between RFC 4627 or the current ECMAScript specification X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 19:38:33 -0000 On 10/2/2013 2:50 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > On Oct 2, 2013, at 10:59 AM, R S wrote: > >> ECMAScript 5.1 contains JSON > Are you saying we should change the reference that was in RFC 4627? Or that we should leave the old reference but create a section on differences that points to 5.1? It's clear to me that the current ECMAScript reference is a mixed bag and does not make sense internally. Nor does it match the thrust of the text around its reference. I'm wondering if it would be useful to have the first paragraph of section 1 cut back. Then expand on JSON's relationship with JavaScript and ECMAScript into another short section that can be a bit more historical in nature. ****** 1. Introduction JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) is a text format for the serialization of structured data. [text cut out here] JSON can represent .... [the rest of section 1 is unchanged] 1.1 Relationship with ECMAScript The definition of JSON is based on the object literals of the JavaScript language, as defined in the ECMAScript Programming Language Standard, Third Edition [ECMA3]. Note that JSON purposely restricts its definition to the representation of structured data, that is an object or array. Subsequent releases of the ECMAScript spec [ECMA5] have introduced support for an extended version of JSON. In particular, their JSON.parse() function accepts a superset of JSON as specified in this document. ****** [ECMA3] European Computer Manufacturers Association, "ECMAScript Language Specification 3rd Edition ", December 1999, . [ECMA5] European Computer Manufacturers Association, "ECMAScript Language Specification 5th Edition ", June 2011, . ****** I'm going to discuss the second paragraph of section 1 in a separate email. Tony From sayrer@gmail.com Wed Oct 2 12:42:28 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CACE21F9F01 for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 12:42:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7HLj7REpRiVv for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 12:42:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qe0-x234.google.com (mail-qe0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c02::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 387F221F9FBA for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 12:32:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qe0-f52.google.com with SMTP id i11so942250qej.39 for ; Wed, 02 Oct 2013 12:32:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=uETvcleG9h/E9hFwfWC7IQYxS+9UwsbsnGzavAxNsqs=; b=dI3zq8m5UouDiZ46RW5TCmGrGMDZwXFmVeWVxAIOH3otyD3u8caXNz8LqD63XsTLZ3 gDhOXTlLQHDqpEZSA/V7FZPuNFBWEq6RyvdZZ3AJsTFFxUBjQNur0r+zRZLipOKiEr0M JrcciaoCwi3ZsEMwkJy0dIBK1bQbGtnPFcoridcoWJJuRBmfUu4H/MeuOUOt3WjmMudc yhaY/syANbtdCqn2UcFU8CKohTY2aecBKQ/zcwOO8hlh//kN5UiTqn4OTWybrBwIicE/ yHZmLBYy8AEYNgbSNk9xe2sKUAaD3afn6AZusOq4MvRwcWwjXm3upeApg8/Iheoe/xW7 lXDw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.224.167.18 with SMTP id o18mr5664202qay.87.1380742378628; Wed, 02 Oct 2013 12:32:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.140.86.147 with HTTP; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 12:32:58 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <421F79DF-0B88-4E24-8666-189228E6E189@vpnc.org> References: <23C96FBA-3419-4C97-A075-462F7443013A@vpnc.org> <421F79DF-0B88-4E24-8666-189228E6E189@vpnc.org> Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 12:32:58 -0700 Message-ID: From: R S To: Paul Hoffman Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01294f5a01322304e7c72372 Cc: JSON WG Subject: Re: [Json] Differences between RFC 4627 or the current ECMAScript specification X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 19:42:28 -0000 --089e01294f5a01322304e7c72372 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I think we pretty clearly need to refer to 5.1 to do the comparison. We can leave the old reference for the "derived from" text if we want. - Rob On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:50 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > On Oct 2, 2013, at 10:59 AM, R S wrote: > > > ECMAScript 5.1 contains JSON > > Are you saying we should change the reference that was in RFC 4627? Or > that we should leave the old reference but create a section on differences > that points to 5.1? > > --Paul Hoffman --089e01294f5a01322304e7c72372 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I think we pretty clearly need to refer to 5.1 to do the c= omparison. We can leave the old reference for the "derived from" = text if we want.

- Rob


On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:50 AM, Paul Ho= ffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote:
On Oct 2, 2013, at 10:59 AM, R S <sa= yrer@gmail.com> wrote:

> ECMAScript 5.1 contains JSON

Are you saying we should change the reference that was in RFC 4627? Or that= we should leave the old reference but create a section on differences that= points to 5.1?

--Paul Hoffman

--089e01294f5a01322304e7c72372-- From sayrer@gmail.com Wed Oct 2 12:46:37 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A779421F9DCB for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 12:46:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gxbXZvzdu2yh for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 12:46:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qa0-x230.google.com (mail-qa0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c00::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05CB421F8793 for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 12:36:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qa0-f48.google.com with SMTP id hu16so935262qab.7 for ; Wed, 02 Oct 2013 12:36:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=y6FOxShwgEqMcFGFCA7ydpvJlDqkTJBQDnHazi9r7y0=; b=gP2TsHwVPQqRtyY3k81XIYIB0rUMEs2oqmt0NUNWF6Oi/uRAs5r4gjb0qL8xRdoHUa f6L/8n+mr7qtfMAZWfoRUPRGKh281np2UenuFEdWING1g00iIrOKorFy5RKaUurxA8nu xzmFjgtI+xUmNTkEzE75JKfO/eP/ZMVY2Eqk+YE36d7OqzuJ/4YY2J50N6iwu5z9EvqM 6d0pF5nySPo6eJhU7vfxEdGFtXb7PRJ7hIQiI44elExKWJgY61vTozxPd7Ix6tL5FAcz Z8gnhk7gTXDv6N0URjJeBZZKoq9NB+Je8M5RiJNAQboGhlq3iKqXgSdaBTkoqCR/i/1S sF2Q== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.224.76.10 with SMTP id a10mr5829691qak.9.1380742583310; Wed, 02 Oct 2013 12:36:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.140.86.147 with HTTP; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 12:36:23 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <23C96FBA-3419-4C97-A075-462F7443013A@vpnc.org> Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 12:36:23 -0700 Message-ID: From: R S To: Tim Bray Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c305a4346c1704e7c72f91 Cc: Bjoern Hoehrmann , JSON WG Subject: Re: [Json] Differences between RFC 4627 or the current ECMAScript specification X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 19:46:38 -0000 --001a11c305a4346c1704e7c72f91 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:31 AM, Tim Bray wrote: > So, would it be enough to: > [snip ...] > - Have a note that there are differences, with a pointer to section > 15.12? > > I think 15.12 does a good job of describing them. > That works for me. - Rob > > On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:06 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrot= e: > >> * Tim Bray wrote: >> >So, I (blush) confess to never having read ECMA-262, which is what 4627 >> >references. I thought I=92d have a glance; I'm assuming that what I wa= nt >> is: >> > >> http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST-ARCH/ECMA-2= 62,%203rd%20edition,%20December%201999.pdf >> >> The JSON object was introduced in the 5th edition of the specification, >> while you have the third edition from 1999. The current edition is 5.1, >> http://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/5.1/#sec-15.12 with the JSON >> object in section 15.12 as linked. >> -- >> Bj=F6rn H=F6hrmann =B7 mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de =B7 http://bjoern.hoeh= rmann.de >> Am Badedeich 7 =B7 Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 =B7 http://www.bjoernsworl= d.de >> 25899 Dageb=FCll =B7 PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 =B7 http://www.websitede= v.de/ >> > > > _______________________________________________ > json mailing list > json@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json > > --001a11c305a4346c1704e7c72f91 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:31 AM, Tim Bray <tbray@textu= ality.com> wrote:
So, would it be e= nough to:
[snip ...]=A0
- Have a note that there are differences, with a pointer t= o section 15.12?=A0

I think 15.12 does a good job of describing the= m.=A0

That works for me.
- Rob=A0


=A0

On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:06 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derho= ermi@gmx.net> wrote:
* Tim Bray wrot= e:
>So, I (blush) confess to never having read ECMA-262, which is what 4627=
>references. =A0I thought I=92d have a glance; I'm assuming that wha= t I want is:
>h= ttp://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST-ARCH/ECMA-262,%= 203rd%20edition,%20December%201999.pdf

The JSON object was introduced in the 5th edition of the specificatio= n,
while you have the third edition from 1999. The current edition is 5.1,
http://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/5.1/#sec-15.12 = with the JSON
object in section 15.12 as linked.
--
Bj=F6rn H=F6hrmann =B7 mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de =B7 http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 =B7 Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 =B7 http://www.bjoernsworld.de=
25899 Dageb=FCll =B7 PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 =B7 http://www.websitedev.de/


_______________________________________________
json mailing list
json@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json


--001a11c305a4346c1704e7c72f91-- From tony@att.com Wed Oct 2 12:50:07 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFB9521F9E99 for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 12:50:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.500, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SRce-YFy25F4 for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 12:49:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tlpi046.enaf.dadc.sbc.com (egssmtp01.att.com [144.160.112.12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D561621F9DF7 for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 12:40:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailgw1.maillennium.att.com (maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by egssmtp01.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r92JeXWs030895 for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 14:40:36 -0500 Received: from [135.91.110.247] (ds135-91-110-247.dhcps.ugn.att.com[135.91.110.247]) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with ESMTP id <20131002194032gw1009k125e> (Authid: tony); Wed, 2 Oct 2013 19:40:33 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.91.110.247] Message-ID: <524C76B0.9040900@att.com> Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 15:40:32 -0400 From: Tony Hansen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: JSON WG References: <23C96FBA-3419-4C97-A075-462F7443013A@vpnc.org> <421F79DF-0B88-4E24-8666-189228E6E189@vpnc.org> <524C73B7.1060104@att.com> In-Reply-To: <524C73B7.1060104@att.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Json] section 1 paragraph 2 on what JSON can represent X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 19:50:07 -0000 The text in section 1 paragraph 2 on what JSON can represent is not really accurate. I know that this text was in the original 4627 and is unchanged from there. However, this is really one of the areas where 4627-JSON and ECMA-JSON differ, and is incorrect for 4627-JSON. This text currently reads: JSON can represent four primitive types (strings, numbers, booleans, and null) and two structured types (objects and arrays). In 4627-JSON, Section 2 says that JSON-text is an object / array. In ECMA-JSON, Section 15.2 says that JSONtext is an object / array / string / number / boolean-literal / null-literal. 4627-JSON cannot truly represent one of the four primitive types, except when it has been encapsulated within an object or array. However, ECMA-JSON can represent any of the four primitive types or two structured types. Since we've as a WG rejected extending 4627-JSON to be compatible with ECMA-JSON, a better statement for 4627bis would be something like this: JSON can represent two structured types (objects and arrays) that are created from four primitive types (strings, numbers, booleans, and null) and recursive objects and arrays. - Tony Hansen From paul.hoffman@vpnc.org Wed Oct 2 12:53:36 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 221F811E80DF for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 12:53:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8fjB0pDosZc0 for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 12:53:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6564D21F8F61 for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 12:43:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [165.227.249.247] (sn80.proper.com [75.101.18.80]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.7/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r92JhpAD031170 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 12:43:52 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: hoffman.proper.com: Host sn80.proper.com [75.101.18.80] claimed to be [165.227.249.247] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) From: Paul Hoffman In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 12:43:51 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <23C96FBA-3419-4C97-A075-462F7443013A@vpnc.org> To: JSON WG X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) Subject: Re: [Json] Differences between RFC 4627 or the current ECMAScript specification X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 19:53:37 -0000 On Oct 2, 2013, at 11:31 AM, Tim Bray wrote: > So, would it be enough to: > - update the informative reference to point to 5.1 > - Have a note that there are differences, with a pointer to section = 15.12? =20 This works for me. In specific, if we try to list the differences, we = are in some sense saying what ECMAScript means, and that feels kind of = rude (just as it would be rude for them to tell us what RFC 4627 meant = to say). --Paul Hoffman= From cabo@tzi.org Wed Oct 2 13:03:02 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54F7321F8947 for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 13:03:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qhYm9BWJrwEf for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 13:02:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A656421F8D12 for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 12:54:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r92Jrui8024208; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 21:53:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.217.105] (p54894EBD.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.137.78.189]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 03A53645; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 21:53:55 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: <524C76B0.9040900@att.com> Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 21:53:54 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <568B5EA6-B9F0-43F2-A63A-245AE9F8F68D@tzi.org> References: <23C96FBA-3419-4C97-A075-462F7443013A@vpnc.org> <421F79DF-0B88-4E24-8666-189228E6E189@vpnc.org> <524C73B7.1060104@att.com> <524C76B0.9040900@att.com> To: Tony Hansen X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) Cc: JSON WG Subject: Re: [Json] section 1 paragraph 2 on what JSON can represent X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 20:03:02 -0000 On Oct 2, 2013, at 21:40, Tony Hansen wrote: > recursive Nested? We can't do recursive, as we only do trees. (maybe "nested objects and arrays of similar construction".) (Really nitpicky people will note that arrays and objects can also be = empty; s/are/can be/?.) Gr=FC=DFe, Carsten From jorge@jorgechamorro.com Wed Oct 2 13:27:13 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D38F621F8793 for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 13:27:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O6zcnQi03eZJ for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 13:27:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-we0-f176.google.com (mail-we0-f176.google.com [74.125.82.176]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAEE121F89A6 for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 13:22:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-we0-f176.google.com with SMTP id u56so1574071wes.35 for ; Wed, 02 Oct 2013 13:22:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:mime-version:content-type:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to; bh=MPhI3rRZbCvgU/QDNwejc2Yc3GfJkuXG8/tL6fYVN3A=; b=DuL4Sxhr96mwHtXH7T9pszVI5lsTIaARV3Ud6Px3AT7xBz4v2HF9PWh8Wb23F0l76x mqa7KfAOgTdke5JTzv1EwOlDqBopdjmuT3syOw88DlnxUnCcL5p5x9R80N+Nk8iyzoe5 CHZqs2KmMfaYM2rRqjcmNMdgBB6qaIvxtnUheMgL5X7zWUzGyqGRilXQhAujhyCE8V2U Vr3WtWdjC/hoTKTTAKJ3z67UCZBS+nRIWjr3Iq6G8GsaRYyfNycTtrpzt+jslQIxtQ39 7OnnMKXrIXw1F2OazxJLIZ9SldfzDIH1D4Xzd1Rshn2sYD7d/o8O15Vv76WC2pRj7HST NJkg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkaBBYJ9TMplbqJIJCmmFFn+rWKkbc6pKgu8ibSNHCYxfwAtQ5Hr2aynAiIPSPzFgMiKE/3 X-Received: by 10.194.21.131 with SMTP id v3mr3883152wje.44.1380745348443; Wed, 02 Oct 2013 13:22:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.10.50] ([80.30.54.184]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id l9sm19949464wif.10.1969.12.31.16.00.00 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 02 Oct 2013 13:22:28 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Jorge Chamorro In-Reply-To: <524C73B7.1060104@att.com> Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 22:22:25 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: References: <23C96FBA-3419-4C97-A075-462F7443013A@vpnc.org> <421F79DF-0B88-4E24-8666-189228E6E189@vpnc.org> <524C73B7.1060104@att.com> To: Tony Hansen X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085) Cc: JSON WG Subject: Re: [Json] Differences between RFC 4627 or the current ECMAScript specification X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 20:27:14 -0000 On 02/10/2013, at 21:27, Tony Hansen wrote: > ****** > 1. Introduction > > JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) No, "JavaScript Object Notation" is *not* "JSON". JSON is based on, and a subset of, the JavaScript Object Notation. -- ( Jorge )(); From tbray@textuality.com Wed Oct 2 13:33:12 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1C8021F84A8 for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 13:33:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.976 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vfZeGU+U-orD for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 13:33:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-la0-f46.google.com (mail-la0-f46.google.com [209.85.215.46]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D87C521F9E02 for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 13:32:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-la0-f46.google.com with SMTP id eh20so1140260lab.19 for ; Wed, 02 Oct 2013 13:32:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=RhUjSHrQ0YbJO4Oii1qxzgzTvj4C3Pii92OOUY9EQfo=; b=FKAs44GOJGXqHWPFRhnI28h7pWcUfdee4UktZMprC4aCMn2Do6LOc0xiMxgw2iIVnc I59m+0+/5eOd1HSniYDEN0r+b+24R4Clj1oY89j66hCjJSQD+egDdmn6mwNWyBxR0qAd jE3aQRgGWgWWKu05NxGQz8Ozp/RtlopiNQVI+iHzPA1zruA8a3Af8Tq6NmaDKzg0aCX9 1UFabf+VfuqDMuqNAsz3Yf/dmlA7eXQ6HZtPCezZLW6qGuaX6rdY/VtCgJEX15FYYEei HCF3MBblvrb9OVXqa/sn8P/4Wm90Z46JbOJxcs/Y55XUSnLN0/AB9/PSvT6Ljb8vqoOd 9UMQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQktNXATdQhFORUgZi3fAIvfjg+uz2Zm7/sERGoftlVkXR6Vmr1zXUymGu2wana3Hyn6HyyJ MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.155.70 with SMTP id vu6mr2843745lbb.41.1380745947598; Wed, 02 Oct 2013 13:32:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.10.200 with HTTP; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 13:32:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [172.19.29.195] In-Reply-To: <524C76B0.9040900@att.com> References: <23C96FBA-3419-4C97-A075-462F7443013A@vpnc.org> <421F79DF-0B88-4E24-8666-189228E6E189@vpnc.org> <524C73B7.1060104@att.com> <524C76B0.9040900@att.com> Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 13:32:27 -0700 Message-ID: From: Tim Bray To: Tony Hansen Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0115fe1ebb621d04e7c7f721 Cc: JSON WG Subject: Re: [Json] section 1 paragraph 2 on what JSON can represent X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 20:33:12 -0000 --089e0115fe1ebb621d04e7c7f721 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The =E2=80=9CJSON can represent...=E2=80=9D text is perfectly accurate. It= may not be able to represent them in a standalone top-level way, but the parts of a JSON text do in fact represent those things. On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Tony Hansen wrote: > The text in section 1 paragraph 2 on what JSON can represent is not > really accurate. I know that this text was in the original 4627 and is > unchanged from there. However, this is really one of the areas where > 4627-JSON and ECMA-JSON differ, and is incorrect for 4627-JSON. This > text currently reads: > > JSON can represent four primitive types (strings, numbers, booleans, > and null) and two structured types (objects and arrays). > > In 4627-JSON, Section 2 says that JSON-text is an object / array. > In ECMA-JSON, Section 15.2 says that JSONtext is an object / array / > string / number / boolean-literal / null-literal. > > 4627-JSON cannot truly represent one of the four primitive types, except > when it has been encapsulated within an object or array. However, > ECMA-JSON can represent any of the four primitive types or two > structured types. > > Since we've as a WG rejected extending 4627-JSON to be compatible with > ECMA-JSON, a better statement for 4627bis would be something like this: > > JSON can represent two structured types (objects and arrays) that are > created from > four primitive types (strings, numbers, booleans, and null) and > recursive objects and > arrays. > > - Tony Hansen > _______________________________________________ > json mailing list > json@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json > --089e0115fe1ebb621d04e7c7f721 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The =E2=80=9CJSON can represent...=E2=80=9D text is perfec= tly accurate.=C2=A0 It may not be able to represent them in a standalone to= p-level way, but the parts of a JSON text do in fact represent those things= .


On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Tony Ha= nsen <tony@att.com> wrote:
The text in section 1 paragraph 2 on what JSON can represent is not
really accurate. I know that this text was in the original 4627 and is
unchanged from there. However, this is really one of the areas where
4627-JSON and ECMA-JSON differ, and is incorrect for 4627-JSON. This
text currently reads:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0JSON can represent four primitive types (strings, numbers, boo= leans,
=C2=A0 =C2=A0and null) and two structured types (objects and arrays).

In 4627-JSON, Section 2 says that JSON-text is an object / array.
In ECMA-JSON, Section 15.2 says that JSONtext is an object / array /
string / number / boolean-literal / null-literal.

4627-JSON cannot truly represent one of the four primitive types, except when it has been encapsulated within an object or array. However,
ECMA-JSON can represent any of the four primitive types or two
structured types.

Since we've as a WG rejected extending 4627-JSON to be compatible with<= br> ECMA-JSON, a better statement for 4627bis would be something like this:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0JSON can represent two structured types (objects and arrays) t= hat are
created from
=C2=A0 =C2=A0four primitive types (strings, numbers, booleans, and null) an= d
recursive objects and
=C2=A0 =C2=A0arrays.

- Tony Hansen
_______________________________________________
json mailing list
json@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json

--089e0115fe1ebb621d04e7c7f721-- From tony@att.com Wed Oct 2 13:41:35 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E27A21F9E6D for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 13:41:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.849 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.849 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.250, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id k36dOtBwZcwU for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 13:41:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from flpi497.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (egssmtp02.att.com [144.160.128.166]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85E6121F9E96 for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 13:40:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dns.maillennium.att.com (maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by egssmtp02.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r92KeXal017945 for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 13:40:34 -0700 Received: from [135.91.110.247] (ds135-91-110-247.dhcps.ugn.att.com[135.91.110.247]) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with ESMTP id <20131002204033gw1009k12ae> (Authid: tony); Wed, 2 Oct 2013 20:40:33 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.91.110.247] Message-ID: <524C84C0.3010502@att.com> Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 16:40:32 -0400 From: Tony Hansen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jorge Chamorro References: <23C96FBA-3419-4C97-A075-462F7443013A@vpnc.org> <421F79DF-0B88-4E24-8666-189228E6E189@vpnc.org> <524C73B7.1060104@att.com> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: JSON WG Subject: Re: [Json] Differences between RFC 4627 or the current ECMAScript specification X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 20:41:35 -0000 On 10/2/2013 4:22 PM, Jorge Chamorro wrote: > On 02/10/2013, at 21:27, Tony Hansen wrote: >> ****** >> 1. Introduction >> >> JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) > No, "JavaScript Object Notation" is *not* "JSON". > > JSON is based on, and a subset of, the JavaScript Object Notation. I did not change that wording. It is what is in the current draft, and in turn was copied directly from RFC 4627. Feel free to argue, preferably in a different thread, for a change to that sentence. Tony Hansen From cowan@ccil.org Wed Oct 2 13:44:10 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3B7E21F8C0C for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 13:44:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id S8RV8CLbVR40 for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 13:44:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from earth.ccil.org (earth.ccil.org [192.190.237.11]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C326021F9D35 for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 13:43:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cowan by earth.ccil.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1VRTGn-0001M3-7W; Wed, 02 Oct 2013 16:43:41 -0400 Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 16:43:41 -0400 From: John Cowan To: Tim Bray Message-ID: <20131002204341.GF30371@mercury.ccil.org> References: <23C96FBA-3419-4C97-A075-462F7443013A@vpnc.org> <421F79DF-0B88-4E24-8666-189228E6E189@vpnc.org> <524C73B7.1060104@att.com> <524C76B0.9040900@att.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: John Cowan Cc: Tony Hansen , JSON WG Subject: Re: [Json] section 1 paragraph 2 on what JSON can represent X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 20:44:10 -0000 Tim Bray scripsit: > The “JSON can represent...” text is perfectly accurate. It may not be able > to represent them in a standalone top-level way, but the parts of a JSON > text do in fact represent those things. +1. If it read "JSON texts can represent" it would indeed be inaccurate, but it doesn't. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan But no living man am I! You look upon a woman. Eowyn I am, Eomund's daughter. You stand between me and my lord and kin. Begone, if you be not deathless. For living or dark undead, I will smite you if you touch him. From cowan@ccil.org Wed Oct 2 13:45:52 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2973B21F9D52 for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 13:45:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9Z7kRX6A10Nd for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 13:45:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from earth.ccil.org (earth.ccil.org [192.190.237.11]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A068921F9E6D for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 13:44:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cowan by earth.ccil.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1VRTHf-0001S2-Ft; Wed, 02 Oct 2013 16:44:35 -0400 Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 16:44:35 -0400 From: John Cowan To: R S Message-ID: <20131002204435.GG30371@mercury.ccil.org> References: <23C96FBA-3419-4C97-A075-462F7443013A@vpnc.org> <421F79DF-0B88-4E24-8666-189228E6E189@vpnc.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: John Cowan Cc: Paul Hoffman , JSON WG Subject: Re: [Json] Differences between RFC 4627 or the current ECMAScript specification X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 20:45:52 -0000 R S scripsit: > I think we pretty clearly need to refer to 5.1 to do the comparison. We > can leave the old reference for the "derived from" text if we want. +1 on both points: JSON is derived from the 3rd edition, but should be compared to the 5.1th (5.1st?) edition. -- Principles. You can't say A is John Cowan made of B or vice versa. All mass http://www.ccil.org/~cowan is interaction. --Richard Feynman From tbray@textuality.com Wed Oct 2 13:48:13 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC7D821F991E for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 13:48:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.976 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id By7z6RGP6kZv for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 13:48:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lb0-f171.google.com (mail-lb0-f171.google.com [209.85.217.171]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBB3221F9E6D for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 13:47:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lb0-f171.google.com with SMTP id u14so1261900lbd.30 for ; Wed, 02 Oct 2013 13:47:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=v6Fqex8Z+kFiajg0ODAITKrlmax5jcXCDah99HAmw/w=; b=jPeFtpVh0MDP8B4mSmnJmvgNrSanKk/84BkHq4xHVCILnbuAgK8qgdGeg9YXy53yX9 seHMXcMqFg3BIRe6b2HUpqeeh9X0OfDhALri1JozTj6unIr33AR/LliC9wSFMvumXElf R8IcBSrJ6JtQLj2kgS1BMHupCItcantK9E3IN10XkneYDsJUTYGTmjpMgdIJO+LKNT1x SK/zEmjo6n07d4k3jITm1HTuR8q+nLcxIFprGLOCk8bXm9D4izq+Nt70PI7Fas7i+Ssu VorFAyBeDctzedLG7HNZiiKatqh0VkC2SDAA4RtL4uFksEO5vrdTsx89HmUnVWPtd8UQ L/HQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkcocKw/rG57hfFDeeBeETT3skibI6dHeCQMXDy/M23QsqRJ5QFUWTCBgZ3HnlgsGlhw6uh MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.168.3 with SMTP id zs3mr3797396lbb.2.1380746829711; Wed, 02 Oct 2013 13:47:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.10.200 with HTTP; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 13:47:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [172.19.29.195] In-Reply-To: <20131002204435.GG30371@mercury.ccil.org> References: <23C96FBA-3419-4C97-A075-462F7443013A@vpnc.org> <421F79DF-0B88-4E24-8666-189228E6E189@vpnc.org> <20131002204435.GG30371@mercury.ccil.org> Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 13:47:09 -0700 Message-ID: From: Tim Bray To: John Cowan Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c33fe64f5b2304e7c82c25 Cc: JSON WG , Paul Hoffman , R S Subject: Re: [Json] Differences between RFC 4627 or the current ECMAScript specification X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 20:48:14 -0000 --001a11c33fe64f5b2304e7c82c25 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Does it matter in the slightest to anyone on the planet what it was derived from? On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 1:44 PM, John Cowan wrote: > R S scripsit: > > > I think we pretty clearly need to refer to 5.1 to do the comparison. We > > can leave the old reference for the "derived from" text if we want. > > +1 on both points: JSON is derived from the 3rd edition, but should be > compared to the 5.1th (5.1st?) edition. > > -- > Principles. You can't say A is John Cowan > made of B or vice versa. All mass http://www.ccil.org/~cowan > is interaction. --Richard Feynman > _______________________________________________ > json mailing list > json@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json > --001a11c33fe64f5b2304e7c82c25 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Does it matter in the slightest to anyone on the planet wh= at it was derived from?


On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 1:44 PM, John Cowan <cowan= @mercury.ccil.org> wrote:
R S scripsit:

> I think we pretty clearly need to refer to 5.1 to do the comparison. W= e
> can leave the old reference for the "derived from" text if w= e want.

+1 on both points: =C2=A0JSON is derived from the 3rd edition, but sh= ould be
compared to the 5.1th (5.1st?) edition.

--
Principles. =C2=A0You can't say A is =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 John C= owan <cowan@ccil.org>
made of B or vice versa. =C2=A0All mass =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0http://www.ccil.org/~cowan is interaction. =C2=A0--Richard Feynman
_____________________= __________________________
json mailing list
json@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json

--001a11c33fe64f5b2304e7c82c25-- From tony@att.com Wed Oct 2 13:49:50 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E126C21F9C05 for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 13:49:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.266 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.266 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.333, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3Tz-kuhGhcwJ for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 13:49:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from flpi406.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (egssmtp03.att.com [144.160.128.152]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD20E21F90CF for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 13:49:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dns.maillennium.att.com (maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by egssmtp03.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r92KnLTN013597 for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 13:49:25 -0700 Received: from [135.91.110.247] (ds135-91-110-247.dhcps.ugn.att.com[135.91.110.247]) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with ESMTP id <20131002204920gw1009k12be> (Authid: tony); Wed, 2 Oct 2013 20:49:20 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.91.110.247] Message-ID: <524C86D0.5050506@att.com> Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 16:49:20 -0400 From: Tony Hansen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: JSON WG References: <23C96FBA-3419-4C97-A075-462F7443013A@vpnc.org> <421F79DF-0B88-4E24-8666-189228E6E189@vpnc.org> <524C73B7.1060104@att.com> <524C76B0.9040900@att.com> <20131002204341.GF30371@mercury.ccil.org> In-Reply-To: <20131002204341.GF30371@mercury.ccil.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [Json] section 1 paragraph 2 on what JSON can represent X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 20:49:51 -0000 On 10/2/2013 4:43 PM, John Cowan wrote: > Tim Bray scripsit: > >> The “JSON can represent...” text is perfectly accurate. It may not be able >> to represent them in a standalone top-level way, but the parts of a JSON >> text do in fact represent those things. > +1. If it read "JSON texts can represent" it would indeed be inaccurate, > but it doesn't. Am I the only one who read that statement to be referring to the top-level value and *not* specifically to internal values? At the least, I think the current statement is ambiguous. It *can* be read either way. Tony Hansen From cabo@tzi.org Wed Oct 2 13:50:15 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF93721F96ED for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 13:50:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vr20mdNyOmQU for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 13:50:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4431321F92B5 for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 13:49:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r92KnkR0010981; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 22:49:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.217.105] (p54894EBD.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.137.78.189]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6CB9665A; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 22:49:46 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 22:49:45 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <23C96FBA-3419-4C97-A075-462F7443013A@vpnc.org> <421F79DF-0B88-4E24-8666-189228E6E189@vpnc.org> <20131002204435.GG30371@mercury.ccil.org> To: Tim Bray X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) Cc: R S , John Cowan , Paul Hoffman , JSON WG Subject: Re: [Json] Differences between RFC 4627 or the current ECMAScript specification X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 20:50:15 -0000 On Oct 2, 2013, at 22:47, Tim Bray wrote: > Does it matter in the slightest to anyone on the planet what it was = derived from? It matters to those who want to understand the confusion between JSON = and JavaScript object notation. Gr=FC=DFe, Carsten From cowan@ccil.org Wed Oct 2 13:52:36 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 820CD21F9EC8 for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 13:52:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SEp4BjGtfQJC for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 13:52:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from earth.ccil.org (earth.ccil.org [192.190.237.11]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A189F21F90CF for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 13:51:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cowan by earth.ccil.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1VRTOm-00029J-Sf; Wed, 02 Oct 2013 16:51:56 -0400 Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 16:51:56 -0400 From: John Cowan To: Tim Bray Message-ID: <20131002205156.GI30371@mercury.ccil.org> References: <23C96FBA-3419-4C97-A075-462F7443013A@vpnc.org> <421F79DF-0B88-4E24-8666-189228E6E189@vpnc.org> <20131002204435.GG30371@mercury.ccil.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: John Cowan Cc: JSON WG , Paul Hoffman , R S Subject: Re: [Json] Differences between RFC 4627 or the current ECMAScript specification X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 20:52:36 -0000 Tim Bray scripsit: > Does it matter in the slightest to anyone on the planet what it was > derived from? Did the etymology of "XML" matter to anyone? Yet there it is. -- You annoy me, Rattray! You disgust me! John Cowan You irritate me unspeakably! Thank Heaven, cowan@ccil.org I am a man of equable temper, or I should http://www.ccil.org/~cowan scarcely be able to contain myself before your mocking visage. --Stalky imitating Macrea From jorge@jorgechamorro.com Wed Oct 2 14:04:14 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C4FD21F9A43 for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 14:04:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Wj7Zy3RLio6L for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 14:04:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wg0-f45.google.com (mail-wg0-f45.google.com [74.125.82.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 514D621F9A61 for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 14:03:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wg0-f45.google.com with SMTP id y10so1556629wgg.12 for ; Wed, 02 Oct 2013 14:03:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:mime-version:content-type:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to; bh=dis0GyvAfMi3P00Pgt0rM8teGT4yx/QrxOhDUglhOhg=; b=PaItuMlUWfVarLJivG0s/4OVadzGlF1uWdz5oXXqyVuqXQBMrQdtft69e3Kifo7SwO i7FHFVY9luJV9ctPC7yZ9aY8U+M6hCnMpqL5TMswD/rQKzdd6OGmid95+wsGj3TLqNKB 4l1xnaMJuAjEWy3DUnB7fpPUpGB5+UIZ1OQ2Vq1Pm2a1hY1foq4xaV2ZLqaC+JslE5LW eyIV/jt2tQhQCp/20m8kqMwb1R3IPdznbZVsJZTzhzwAlkPDEgv7NsHvi7mw0ujWCpKE /eG4bebizsrG6m/AaEioKv1sSYmp6r8PAUsrDcI1BcK7ZLRriArKjpKYRDzYJMDAt+xL vCSw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmI9L8axkW3tn6pCzUd/Ifrq+/nUjFEVxMDqgUyL/0s9g/Ybifrz0a3uPpf8NzT8WGszUkS X-Received: by 10.180.185.101 with SMTP id fb5mr21899351wic.11.1380747830079; Wed, 02 Oct 2013 14:03:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.10.50] ([80.30.54.184]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id gp9sm20210143wib.8.1969.12.31.16.00.00 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 02 Oct 2013 14:03:49 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Jorge Chamorro In-Reply-To: <524C84C0.3010502@att.com> Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 23:03:46 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <51B9D87E-4735-4E99-9723-ED4F52F95B0E@jorgechamorro.com> References: <23C96FBA-3419-4C97-A075-462F7443013A@vpnc.org> <421F79DF-0B88-4E24-8666-189228E6E189@vpnc.org> <524C73B7.1060104@att.com> <524C84C0.3010502@att.com> To: Tony Hansen X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085) Cc: JSON WG Subject: Re: [Json] Differences between RFC 4627 or the current ECMAScript specification X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 21:04:14 -0000 On 02/10/2013, at 22:40, Tony Hansen wrote: > On 10/2/2013 4:22 PM, Jorge Chamorro wrote: >> On 02/10/2013, at 21:27, Tony Hansen wrote: >>> ****** >>> 1. Introduction >>>=20 >>> JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) >> No, "JavaScript Object Notation" is *not* "JSON". >>=20 >> JSON is based on, and a subset of, the JavaScript Object Notation. >=20 > I did not change that wording. It is what is in the current draft, and > in turn was copied directly from RFC 4627. >=20 > Feel free to argue, preferably in a different thread, for a change to > that sentence. Ooops, my apologies. For some reason I was reading object literal = instead of object notation, I'm sorry. JSON is based on, and a subset of, the JavaScript object literal = notation. --=20 ( Jorge )();= From jorge@jorgechamorro.com Wed Oct 2 14:07:34 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B161D21F9EAD for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 14:07:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Rj4JbcnnSb0q for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 14:07:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wi0-f171.google.com (mail-wi0-f171.google.com [209.85.212.171]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA44021F9D2A for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 14:06:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wi0-f171.google.com with SMTP id hm2so7941732wib.16 for ; Wed, 02 Oct 2013 14:06:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:mime-version:content-type:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to; bh=Sl7ad4dn8D5Ufugh5/TGF+ymshblzLKPwhX7DxYZdxs=; b=gzOQDbfG1g3m6oZysT6sQEJOOqQHFOVnoonl+kkKD6xnblIO6zEjS1A2nOZZzU9AYn uDZIpBCBK+x+zFvFk4NhAVvQk/eeY3aLqmmGAKokyURV0emK0PXmDFzfILhi5ZKo1OaT X5KpgYxQE5svqPQA/abgKZyp0Ay6YpY7lmtXh5KT1SWxnYzExdWhzNykgaGWSCRWX3So uG9EoIk4/vvEjMlq86mjvPifaYxx/ItB9CbGjHcHMPlKQvL5NhS1GPgAzrhJFINll8Ts 36k0vHgah0UyShLf8tTFcT4y1mHSK4+QsXMnsNtgzER8ZLKTAK1huWVx24weOiVqNoiQ cagQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmCVktcrQvTjl5+x8rPHVmtVB/fGm7fqQMJXaXWTdMZQOXFiqedWV43H4CWmRmzt5GiLBFX X-Received: by 10.180.20.116 with SMTP id m20mr3761582wie.53.1380747988860; Wed, 02 Oct 2013 14:06:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.10.50] ([80.30.54.184]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id fb9sm7271123wid.7.1969.12.31.16.00.00 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 02 Oct 2013 14:06:28 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Jorge Chamorro In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 23:06:25 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <02FF1DAF-EF03-48C0-BD97-0AE4E16B1066@jorgechamorro.com> References: <23C96FBA-3419-4C97-A075-462F7443013A@vpnc.org> <421F79DF-0B88-4E24-8666-189228E6E189@vpnc.org> <20131002204435.GG30371@mercury.ccil.org> To: Tim Bray X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085) Cc: R S , John Cowan , Paul Hoffman , JSON WG Subject: Re: [Json] Differences between RFC 4627 or the current ECMAScript specification X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 21:07:34 -0000 On 02/10/2013, at 22:47, Tim Bray wrote: > Does it matter in the slightest to anyone on the planet what it was = derived from? Yes, of course. --=20 ( Jorge )();= From paul.hoffman@vpnc.org Wed Oct 2 14:35:19 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4759021F9EB6 for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 14:35:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FXjaMP6f0UXB for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 14:35:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0322F21F9E7C for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 14:35:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [165.227.249.247] (sn80.proper.com [75.101.18.80]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.7/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r92LYvI8034596 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 2 Oct 2013 14:34:58 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: hoffman.proper.com: Host sn80.proper.com [75.101.18.80] claimed to be [165.227.249.247] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) From: Paul Hoffman In-Reply-To: <524C86D0.5050506@att.com> Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 14:34:57 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <23C96FBA-3419-4C97-A075-462F7443013A@vpnc.org> <421F79DF-0B88-4E24-8666-189228E6E189@vpnc.org> <524C73B7.1060104@att.com> <524C76B0.9040900@att.com> <20131002204341.GF30371@mercury.ccil.org> <524C86D0.5050506@att.com> To: Tony Hansen X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) Cc: JSON WG Subject: Re: [Json] section 1 paragraph 2 on what JSON can represent X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 21:35:19 -0000 On Oct 2, 2013, at 1:49 PM, Tony Hansen wrote: > On 10/2/2013 4:43 PM, John Cowan wrote: >> Tim Bray scripsit: >>=20 >>> The =93JSON can represent...=94 text is perfectly accurate. It may = not be able >>> to represent them in a standalone top-level way, but the parts of a = JSON >>> text do in fact represent those things. >> +1. If it read "JSON texts can represent" it would indeed be = inaccurate, >> but it doesn't. >=20 > Am I the only one who read that statement to be referring to the > top-level value and *not* specifically to internal values? Maybe. When you hit the definition of JSON-text, it sounds like you said = "these disagree" instead of "these are describing different things". > At the least, I think the current statement is ambiguous. It *can* be > read either way. The question of what is a JSON-text seems important, but maybe should = not be made to the detriment of the clarity of the first sentence. --Paul Hoffman= From tbray@textuality.com Wed Oct 2 16:06:42 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27E2F21F8F3C for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 16:06:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.976 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZZaQf8Lh9XWD for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 16:06:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vb0-f53.google.com (mail-vb0-f53.google.com [209.85.212.53]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91A1821F92E7 for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 16:05:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vb0-f53.google.com with SMTP id i3so1119910vbh.12 for ; Wed, 02 Oct 2013 16:05:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=8ZeowizvAwMzxNh49fgsKkVm7WnUX/SRLQPc9kCj0IY=; b=Fdjvvw3zPjCMKzbvexJfccSujRzAGcdTv8C1GGpkXYHqmpDR1QofePephtf4JDOBp9 k1G8I8kqA5yV0hqZYH5iiZ15SiDV70atJhQH/hwby3Y12xRo4enlICDFpjgQzHn0rUiy bwLO60If7lKx5IbUQghJqZBLhHyfy3SZqDYK3LdCpuSWK05XUFgi5HJFg5CP7v3/pTgy hg5LLu0DxfknACFjM/hk4F+yG/5HiUq1V6IZow1Z7ooHdJ6kU69OJJ/L9ThNfxl2s79M 0dwpmEY5YzoBOj5lYOEVH1xOsKAKWYVB3ircfYmPHYgJK8/Joa/031Tkx+yVeJA6O61e Tptw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl68APf+k/y3lYKm/MwRdijpKgKV4xzRo9hQ1AW6rPtmWvgvSX2IKX6g0JXpTG+0Qb7BBR2 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.59.11.69 with SMTP id eg5mr4281560ved.17.1380755143909; Wed, 02 Oct 2013 16:05:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.174.197 with HTTP; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 16:05:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [172.19.29.195] In-Reply-To: <02FF1DAF-EF03-48C0-BD97-0AE4E16B1066@jorgechamorro.com> References: <23C96FBA-3419-4C97-A075-462F7443013A@vpnc.org> <421F79DF-0B88-4E24-8666-189228E6E189@vpnc.org> <20131002204435.GG30371@mercury.ccil.org> <02FF1DAF-EF03-48C0-BD97-0AE4E16B1066@jorgechamorro.com> Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 16:05:43 -0700 Message-ID: From: Tim Bray To: Jorge Chamorro Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bf0dc6cdff82804e7ca1bed Cc: R S , John Cowan , Paul Hoffman , JSON WG Subject: Re: [Json] Differences between RFC 4627 or the current ECMAScript specification X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 23:06:42 -0000 --047d7bf0dc6cdff82804e7ca1bed Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable First para of 1 says =E2=80=9CJavaScript Object Notation (JSON) is a text f= ormat for the serialization of structured data. It is derived from the object literals of JavaScript, as defined in the ECMAScript Programming Language Standard, Third Edition [ECMA].=E2=80=9D I think that on balance we don=E2=80=99t want to screw with the words, and = I=E2=80=99d be OK with leading the reference to the 1998 version as it is in the original. We=E2=80=99ll need another reference to 5.1 to put the pointer to their lis= t of differences, which I=E2=80=99ll find a home for somewhere. On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Jorge Chamorro wro= te: > On 02/10/2013, at 22:47, Tim Bray wrote: > > > Does it matter in the slightest to anyone on the planet what it was > derived from? > > Yes, of course. > > -- > ( Jorge )(); --047d7bf0dc6cdff82804e7ca1bed Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
First para of 1 says =E2=80=9CJavaScript Object Notation (= JSON) is a text format for the serialization of structured data. It is deri= ved from the object literals of JavaScript, as defined in the ECMAScript Pr= ogramming Language Standard, Third Edition [ECMA].=E2=80=9D

I think that on balance we don=E2=80=99t want to screw with the words, = and I=E2=80=99d be OK with leading the reference to the 1998 version as it = is in the original. We=E2=80=99ll need another reference to 5.1 to put the = pointer to their list of differences, which I=E2=80=99ll find a home for so= mewhere.=C2=A0




On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Jorge Chamorro <jorge@jorgechamorro= .com> wrote:
On 02/10/2013, at 22:47, T= im Bray wrote:

> Does it matter in the slightest to anyone on the planet what it was de= rived from?

Yes, of course.

--
( Jorge )();

--047d7bf0dc6cdff82804e7ca1bed-- From duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp Wed Oct 2 18:40:51 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAC1121F9F1B for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 18:40:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -99.79 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.79 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yecBvLNtyKXv for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 18:40:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scintmta01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (scintmta01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp [133.2.253.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71BFC21F9E6B for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 18:40:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scmse02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp ([133.2.253.231]) by scintmta01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (secret/secret) with SMTP id r931eIIP012842; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 10:40:18 +0900 Received: from (unknown [133.2.206.134]) by scmse02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp with smtp id 0916_234e_c246c87e_2bcc_11e3_a21c_001e6722eec2; Thu, 03 Oct 2013 10:40:17 +0900 Received: from [IPv6:::1] (unknown [133.2.210.1]) by itmail2.it.aoyama.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9630BF4E2; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 10:40:17 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <524CCAF3.7090209@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2013 10:40:03 +0900 From: =?UTF-8?B?Ik1hcnRpbiBKLiBEw7xyc3Qi?= Organization: Aoyama Gakuin University User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100722 Eudora/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Carsten Bormann References: <23C96FBA-3419-4C97-A075-462F7443013A@vpnc.org> <421F79DF-0B88-4E24-8666-189228E6E189@vpnc.org> <20131002204435.GG30371@mercury.ccil.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: John Cowan , JSON WG , Tim Bray , Paul Hoffman , R S Subject: Re: [Json] Differences between RFC 4627 or the current ECMAScript specification X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2013 01:40:52 -0000 On 2013/10/03 5:49, Carsten Bormann wrote: > On Oct 2, 2013, at 22:47, Tim Bray wrote: > >> Does it matter in the slightest to anyone on the planet what it was derived from? > > It matters to those who want to understand the confusion between JSON and JavaScript object notation. And will help even those who don't necessarily want to understand this confusion, but are confused anyhow. In other words, such explanations help because they tend to spread, via books, web pages, and so on. Having the correctly worded explanation in the original document improves this spread. Regards, Martin. From James.H.Manger@team.telstra.com Wed Oct 2 18:57:29 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6607321F9C38 for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 18:57:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_AU=0.377, HOST_EQ_AU=0.327, RELAY_IS_203=0.994] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8mHQ1wNGCNf9 for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 18:57:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ipxano.tcif.telstra.com.au (ipxano.tcif.telstra.com.au [203.35.82.200]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED4C821F9EA8 for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 18:55:11 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.90,1022,1371045600"; d="scan'208";a="161146860" Received: from unknown (HELO ipcdni.tcif.telstra.com.au) ([10.97.216.212]) by ipoani.tcif.telstra.com.au with ESMTP; 03 Oct 2013 11:55:08 +1000 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,7216"; a="123521849" Received: from wsmsg3753.srv.dir.telstra.com ([172.49.40.174]) by ipcdni.tcif.telstra.com.au with ESMTP; 03 Oct 2013 11:55:08 +1000 Received: from WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com ([172.49.40.159]) by WSMSG3753.srv.dir.telstra.com ([172.49.40.174]) with mapi; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 11:55:07 +1000 From: "Manger, James H" To: Tony Hansen , JSON WG Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2013 11:55:06 +1000 Thread-Topic: [Json] section 1 paragraph 2 on what JSON can represent Thread-Index: Ac6/qJz7wJ/XXJhgRzeBh/mEYOEmwgAKS11w Message-ID: <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E115318CAD1F@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com> References: <23C96FBA-3419-4C97-A075-462F7443013A@vpnc.org> <421F79DF-0B88-4E24-8666-189228E6E189@vpnc.org> <524C73B7.1060104@att.com> <524C76B0.9040900@att.com> In-Reply-To: <524C76B0.9040900@att.com> Accept-Language: en-US, en-AU Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US, en-AU Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Json] section 1 paragraph 2 on what JSON can represent X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2013 01:57:29 -0000 PiBJbiA0NjI3LUpTT04sIFNlY3Rpb24gMiBzYXlzIHRoYXQgSlNPTi10ZXh0IGlzIGFuIG9iamVj dCAvIGFycmF5Lg0KPiBJbiBFQ01BLUpTT04sIFNlY3Rpb24gMTUuMiBzYXlzIHRoYXQgSlNPTnRl eHQgaXMgYW4gb2JqZWN0IC8gYXJyYXkgLw0KPiBzdHJpbmcgLyBudW1iZXIgLyBib29sZWFuLWxp dGVyYWwgLyBudWxsLWxpdGVyYWwuDQo+IC4uLg0KPiBTaW5jZSB3ZSd2ZSBhcyBhIFdHIHJlamVj dGVkIGV4dGVuZGluZyA0NjI3LUpTT04gdG8gYmUgY29tcGF0aWJsZSB3aXRoDQo+IEVDTUEtSlNP TiwNCg0KDQpEaWQgd2UgcmVqZWN0IHRoYXQ/IExldHMgdW4tcmVqZWN0IGl0IHRoZW4uDQoNClRo ZXJlIHdhcyBhIHN1YnN0YW50aWFsIGRpc2N1c3Npb24gPGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvbWFp bC1hcmNoaXZlL3dlYi9qc29uL2N1cnJlbnQvbXNnMDA1NTMuaHRtbD47IGhhbGYtYS1kb3plbiBw ZW9wbGUgc3Ryb25nbHkgc3VwcG9ydGVkIGV4dGVuZGluZyA0NjI3LUpTT04gdG8gYmUgY29tcGF0 aWJsZSB3aXRoIEVDTUEtSlNPTjsgYWJvdXQgMyB3ZXJlIHN0cm9uZ2x5IGFnYWluc3Q7IGFuZCBh IGhhbmRmdWwgc2VlbWVkIHRvIGJlIGluIHRoZSBtaWRkbGUuDQoNClRoZXJlIGlzIGNsZWFybHkg bm8gbWFqb3IgcHJvYmxlbSB3aXRoIGFsbG93aW5nIGFueSBKU09OIHZhbHVlIGF0IHRoZSB0b3Ag bGV2ZWwgYXMgRUNNQVNjcmlwdCBhbGxvd3MgdGhpcyBhbmQgbWFueSBpbXBsZW1lbnRhdGlvbnMg c3VwcG9ydCBpdC4gSXQgZG9lc24ndCBicmVhayBiYWNrd2FyZHMtY29tcGF0aWJpbGl0eSBhcyBh bGwgZXhpc3RpbmcgdGV4dHMgYXJlIHN0aWxsIHZhbGlkLiBPYmplY3RzIGFuZCBhcnJheXMgYXJl IHN0aWxsIHNlbGYtZGVsaW1pdGluZyBpZiBhbnkgc3lzdGVtcyByZWx5IG9uIHRoYXQgaW1wbGll ZCBwcm9wZXJ0eTsgYW5kIHNlcGFyYXRpbmcgaXRlbXMgd2l0aCBhIHNwYWNlIChvciBuZXdsaW5l KSB0cml2aWFsbHkgYWxsb3dzIGFueSBKU09OIHZhbHVlcyB0byBiZSBzZWxmLWRlbGltaXRpbmcu IEF1dG8tZGV0ZWN0aW5nIGNoYXJzZXRzIGNhbiBzdGlsbCB3b3JrLiBEZXRlY3RpbmcgdHJ1bmNh dGlvbiAoYnV0IG5vdCBvdGhlciB2YXJpZXRpZXMgb2YgbW9kaWZpY2F0aW9uKSBzZWVtcyBsaWtl IGEgdmVyeSBtYXJnaW5hbCBiZW5lZml0LCBhbmQgd291bGQgc3RpbGwgYXBwbHkgdG8gZXZlcnl0 aGluZyBleGNlcHQgbnVtYmVycyB3aGljaCBhcmUgdW5saWtlbHkgdG8gYmUgdHJ1bmNhdGVkIGFz IHRoZXkgYXJlIGludmFyaWFibHkgc2hvcnQgKGVnIDEwcyBvZiBieXRlcyk6IG5vdGljaW5nIHRy dW5jYXRpb24gb2YgbG9uZyBpdGVtcyAob2JqZWN0cywgYXJyYXlzLCBzdHJpbmdzKSBpcyB1bmNo YW5nZWQuDQoNCkEgbm90ZSBpbiA0NjI3YmlzIGNvdWxkIHN0aWxsIHNheSB5b3UgZ2V0IG1vcmUg aW50ZXJvcGVyYWJpbGl0eSB3aGVuIHN0aWNraW5nIHRvIG9iamVjdHMgYW5kIGFycmF5cyBhdCB0 aGUgdG9wIGxldmVsLg0KDQpBIG5vdGUgaW4gYSBzdWJzZXF1ZW50IEpTT04tYmVzdC1wcmFjdGlz ZXMgZG9jIGNvdWxkIHJlY29tbWVuZCB1c2luZyBvYmplY3RzIGZvciBtZXNzYWdlcyBpbiBnZW5l cmFsLCBhcyB0aGV5IGVhc2lseSBhbGxvd3MgaWdub3JhYmxlIGV4dGVuc2lvbnMgdmlhIG5ldyBl bGVtZW50cy4NCg0KLS0NCkphbWVzIE1hbmdlcg0K From sayrer@gmail.com Wed Oct 2 19:41:58 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B829121F9F4F for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 19:41:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sw0UB+zz8Vjr for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 19:41:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qc0-x22c.google.com (mail-qc0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::22c]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3864D21F9E9D for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 19:41:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qc0-f172.google.com with SMTP id l13so1221040qcy.3 for ; Wed, 02 Oct 2013 19:41:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=MEWy67Fsa47MYZ3mF1aUl3b8UYaL4z76Pj9hHSwD+Fw=; b=GVhEIdC+Oi5FOuzC7ZsGMUnH/2NdcrDvgH7FKlLK+qPU7by532sjlGQVut+lfH32j/ 6TeNnvYpPtnWXwGG7gfi2uihm62WEsDxV7ULRjQrkVQ6w748tIapNLsqKkhiRTBsmDra VaFkIfs+DAS50MwRghJ6OPWO6v/PyDdW/CTkowIv4dUHbxzdaPuyP2TyYcYRLRPlGyjt F1182gr8arlIQrzMXM5RIMqcYu1UROkG57iI0Pk6jRucdHKTK266Hlo5XpmHqZOE/Xsi IVjEiJnt0HmF/I7q2qG4+GK4sPXQd9Pwul+sTJ9bwxvQoWj6dlXz/faGztOt61W085eh Eytw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.49.51.167 with SMTP id l7mr6837244qeo.52.1380768102712; Wed, 02 Oct 2013 19:41:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.140.86.147 with HTTP; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 19:41:42 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <23C96FBA-3419-4C97-A075-462F7443013A@vpnc.org> <421F79DF-0B88-4E24-8666-189228E6E189@vpnc.org> <20131002204435.GG30371@mercury.ccil.org> Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 19:41:42 -0700 Message-ID: From: R S To: Tim Bray Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bdc134a478cb104e7cd20bd Cc: John Cowan , Paul Hoffman , JSON WG Subject: Re: [Json] Differences between RFC 4627 or the current ECMAScript specification X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2013 02:41:58 -0000 --047d7bdc134a478cb104e7cd20bd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Tim Bray wrote: > Does it matter in the slightest to anyone on the planet what it was > derived from? > Well, let's see. The text passes the first test we should use: it is true. Second, the text uses this section to appropriately credit the work on which it is based. Third, the text is a concise explanation of what one might expect from the JSON format. Frankly, it's hard to for me to see the desire to remove that reference as anything more than ideological. - Rob > On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 1:44 PM, John Cowan wrote: > >> R S scripsit: >> >> > I think we pretty clearly need to refer to 5.1 to do the comparison. We >> > can leave the old reference for the "derived from" text if we want. >> >> +1 on both points: JSON is derived from the 3rd edition, but should be >> compared to the 5.1th (5.1st?) edition. >> >> -- >> Principles. You can't say A is John Cowan >> made of B or vice versa. All mass http://www.ccil.org/~cowan >> is interaction. --Richard Feynman >> _______________________________________________ >> json mailing list >> json@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json >> > > --047d7bdc134a478cb104e7cd20bd Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On W= ed, Oct 2, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> wrote:
Does it matter in the sligh= test to anyone on the planet what it was derived from?

Well, let's see.

The text passe= s the first test we should use: it is true.

Second= , the text uses this section to appropriately credit the work on which it i= s based.

Third, the text is a concise explanation of what one mi= ght expect from the JSON format.

Frankly, it's= hard to for me to see the desire to remove that reference as anything more= than ideological.

- Rob

=A0
=
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 1:44 PM, John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> wrote:
_____________________= __________________________
json mailing list
json@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json


--047d7bdc134a478cb104e7cd20bd-- From duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp Wed Oct 2 21:22:43 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C878511E80D3 for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 21:22:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.79 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.79 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pNgA6iYUAD5e for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 21:22:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scintmta02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (scintmta02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp [133.2.253.34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE99721F9E02 for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 21:22:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scmse02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp ([133.2.253.231]) by scintmta02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (secret/secret) with SMTP id r934M2BK011438; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 13:22:02 +0900 Received: from (unknown [133.2.206.134]) by scmse02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp with smtp id 091a_7349_5a795d80_2be3_11e3_b87b_001e6722eec2; Thu, 03 Oct 2013 13:22:02 +0900 Received: from [IPv6:::1] (unknown [133.2.210.1]) by itmail2.it.aoyama.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 199BABF4E2; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 13:22:02 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <524CF0DC.8080701@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2013 13:21:48 +0900 From: =?UTF-8?B?Ik1hcnRpbiBKLiBEw7xyc3Qi?= Organization: Aoyama Gakuin University User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100722 Eudora/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Cowan References: <23C96FBA-3419-4C97-A075-462F7443013A@vpnc.org> <421F79DF-0B88-4E24-8666-189228E6E189@vpnc.org> <20131002204435.GG30371@mercury.ccil.org> In-Reply-To: <20131002204435.GG30371@mercury.ccil.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: JSON WG , Paul Hoffman , R S Subject: Re: [Json] Differences between RFC 4627 or the current ECMAScript specification X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2013 04:22:43 -0000 On 2013/10/03 5:44, John Cowan wrote: > R S scripsit: > >> I think we pretty clearly need to refer to 5.1 to do the comparison. We >> can leave the old reference for the "derived from" text if we want. > > +1 on both points: JSON is derived from the 3rd edition, but should be > compared to the 5.1th (5.1st?) edition. Edition 5.1, hopefully. Regards, Martin. From cowan@ccil.org Wed Oct 2 21:53:28 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4ED1221F9E94 for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 21:53:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yf217sjnpy2S for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 21:53:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from earth.ccil.org (earth.ccil.org [192.190.237.11]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C5AD21F9E6A for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 21:53:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cowan by earth.ccil.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1VRauT-0000Wr-Vh; Thu, 03 Oct 2013 00:53:10 -0400 Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2013 00:53:09 -0400 From: John Cowan To: "Manger, James H" Message-ID: <20131003045309.GN30371@mercury.ccil.org> References: <23C96FBA-3419-4C97-A075-462F7443013A@vpnc.org> <421F79DF-0B88-4E24-8666-189228E6E189@vpnc.org> <524C73B7.1060104@att.com> <524C76B0.9040900@att.com> <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E115318CAD1F@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E115318CAD1F@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: John Cowan Cc: Tony Hansen , JSON WG Subject: Re: [Json] section 1 paragraph 2 on what JSON can represent X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2013 04:53:28 -0000 Manger, James H scripsit: > There was a substantial discussion > ; > half-a-dozen people strongly supported extending 4627-JSON to be > compatible with ECMA-JSON; about 3 were strongly against; and a handful > seemed to be in the middle. It doesn't seem to fit with the current mission, which is not to extend JSON but to clarify the spec and add warnings about compatibility issues. There are a whole mess of common extensions I'd rather do before I do this. For one thing, JSON numbers aren't self-delimiting, though strings and true/false/null are. -- It was dreary and wearisome. Cold clammy winter still held sway in this forsaken country. The only green was the scum of livid weed on the dark greasy surfaces of the sullen waters. Dead grasses and rotting reeds loomed up in the mists like ragged shadows of long-forgotten summers. --"The Passage of the Marshes" http://www.ccil.org/~cowan From James.H.Manger@team.telstra.com Wed Oct 2 23:34:19 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C04821F9AF8 for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 23:34:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_AU=0.377, HOST_EQ_AU=0.327, RELAY_IS_203=0.994] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id T1t9210bbF4i for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 23:34:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ipxbno.tcif.telstra.com.au (ipxbno.tcif.telstra.com.au [203.35.82.204]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C2B321E8084 for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 23:33:12 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.90,1024,1371045600"; d="scan'208";a="151488864" Received: from unknown (HELO ipcbni.tcif.telstra.com.au) ([10.97.216.204]) by ipobni.tcif.telstra.com.au with ESMTP; 03 Oct 2013 16:33:11 +1000 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,7216"; a="166843051" Received: from wsmsg3705.srv.dir.telstra.com ([172.49.40.203]) by ipcbni.tcif.telstra.com.au with ESMTP; 03 Oct 2013 16:32:11 +1000 Received: from WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com ([172.49.40.159]) by WSMSG3705.srv.dir.telstra.com ([172.49.40.203]) with mapi; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 16:32:10 +1000 From: "Manger, James H" To: John Cowan Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2013 16:32:09 +1000 Thread-Topic: [Json] section 1 paragraph 2 on what JSON can represent Thread-Index: Ac6/9H2RFf3RiMMBQuKWdCv0EmQkbAAB69lw Message-ID: <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E11531983356@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com> References: <23C96FBA-3419-4C97-A075-462F7443013A@vpnc.org> <421F79DF-0B88-4E24-8666-189228E6E189@vpnc.org> <524C73B7.1060104@att.com> <524C76B0.9040900@att.com> <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E115318CAD1F@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com> <20131003045309.GN30371@mercury.ccil.org> In-Reply-To: <20131003045309.GN30371@mercury.ccil.org> Accept-Language: en-US, en-AU Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US, en-AU Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: JSON WG Subject: Re: [Json] section 1 paragraph 2 on what JSON can represent X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2013 06:34:19 -0000 PiA+IFRoZXJlIHdhcyBhIHN1YnN0YW50aWFsIGRpc2N1c3Npb24NCj4gPiA8aHR0cDovL3d3dy5p ZXRmLm9yZy9tYWlsLWFyY2hpdmUvd2ViL2pzb24vY3VycmVudC9tc2cwMDU1My5odG1sPjsNCj4g PiBoYWxmLWEtZG96ZW4gcGVvcGxlIHN0cm9uZ2x5IHN1cHBvcnRlZCBleHRlbmRpbmcgNDYyNy1K U09OIHRvIGJlDQo+ID4gY29tcGF0aWJsZSB3aXRoIEVDTUEtSlNPTjsgYWJvdXQgMyB3ZXJlIHN0 cm9uZ2x5IGFnYWluc3Q7IGFuZCBhDQo+IGhhbmRmdWwNCj4gPiBzZWVtZWQgdG8gYmUgaW4gdGhl IG1pZGRsZS4NCg0KPiBJdCBkb2Vzbid0IHNlZW0gdG8gZml0IHdpdGggdGhlIGN1cnJlbnQgbWlz c2lvbiwgd2hpY2ggaXMgbm90IHRvIGV4dGVuZA0KPiBKU09OIGJ1dCB0byBjbGFyaWZ5IHRoZSBz cGVjIGFuZCBhZGQgd2FybmluZ3MgYWJvdXQgY29tcGF0aWJpbGl0eQ0KPiBpc3N1ZXMuDQoNClRo aXMgaXNzdWUgZml0cyB0aGUgY2hhcnRlciBwZXJmZWN0bHkuIEl0IGlzIGEgc2lnbmlmaWNhbnQg aW5jb25zaXN0ZW5jeSBpbiB0aGUgSlNPTiBjb21tdW5pdHkuDQoNCiAgSXQgaXMgYWNrbm93bGVk Z2VkIHRoYXQgdGhlcmUgYXJlIGRpZmZlcmVuY2VzIGJldHdlZW4gUkZDIDQ2MjcgYW5kIHRoZQ0K ICBFQ01BU2NyaXB0IHNwZWNpZmljYXRpb24gaW4gdGhlIHJ1bGVzIGZvciBwYXJzaW5nIEpTT04u IEFueSBjaGFuZ2VzIHRoYXQNCiAgYnJlYWsgY29tcGF0aWJpbGl0eSB3aXRoIGV4aXN0aW5nIGlt cGxlbWVudGF0aW9ucyBvZiBlaXRoZXIgUkZDIDQ2Mjcgb3INCiAgdGhlIEVDTUFTY3JpcHQgc3Bl Y2lmaWNhdGlvbiB3aWxsIG5lZWQgdG8gaGF2ZSB2ZXJ5IHN0cm9uZyBqdXN0aWZpY2F0aW9uDQog IGFuZCBicm9hZCBzdXBwb3J0LiBBbGwgZGlmZmVyZW5jZXMgYmV0d2VlbiBSRkMgNDYyNyBvciB0 aGUgY3VycmVudA0KICBFQ01BU2NyaXB0IHNwZWNpZmljYXRpb24gd2lsbCBiZSBkb2N1bWVudGVk IGluIHRoZSBuZXcgUkZDLg0KDQpUaGUgbGFzdCBzZW50ZW5jZSBhYm92ZSBzYXlzIDQ2MjctYmlz IG5lZWRzIHRvIGRvY3VtZW50IHRoZSB0ZXh0PW9iai9hcnJheSB2cyB0ZXh0PWFueS12YWx1ZSBk aWZmZXJlbmNlLiBUaGUgY2hvaWNlIGlzIHRvIGRvY3VtZW50IGl0IGFzIGEgZGlmZmVyZW5jZSB0 byBFQ01BU2NyaXB0IG9yIGFzIGEgZGlmZmVyZW5jZSB0byA0NjI3LiBIb3dldmVyIGl0IGlzIGRv Y3VtZW50ZWQsIEkgaG9wZSBKU09OIGxpYnJhcnkgZGV2ZWxvcGVycyBnZXQgdGhlIG1lc3NhZ2Ug bm90IHRvIGJvdGhlciBlbmZvcmNpbmcgdGhlIHRleHQ9b2JqL2FycmF5IHJlc3RyaWN0aW9uOyBh bmQgSlNPTiBtZXNzYWdlIGRlc2lnbmVycyBub3RpY2UgdGhhdCB0aGV5IGRvbuKAmXQgbmVlZCB0 byBhZGQgYW4gZXh0cmEgd3JhcHBpbmcgbGF5ZXIgKGEgbGEgU09BUCkgd2hlbiB0aGV5IHdhbnQg dG8gZXhjaGFuZ2UgYXJiaXRyYXJ5IEpTT04gdmFsdWVzLg0KDQoNCj4gVGhlcmUgYXJlIGEgd2hv bGUgbWVzcyBvZiBjb21tb24gZXh0ZW5zaW9ucyBJJ2QgcmF0aGVyIGRvIGJlZm9yZSBJIGRvDQo+ IHRoaXMuDQoNCldlbGwgdGhpcyBpcyB0aGUgcHJpbWFyeSBleHRlbnNpb24gdGhhdCBpcyBjb25z aXN0ZW50bHkgc3VwcG9ydGVkIGJ5IEVDTUFTY3JpcHQgYW5kIG1hbnkgaW1wbGVtZW50YXRpb25z IHNvIEkgc3VnZ2VzdCB0aGlzIHNob3VsZCBiZSBhIHByaW9yaXR5IGJlZm9yZSBhICJ3aG9sZSBt ZXNzIG9mIGNvbW1vbiBleHRlbnNpb25zIi4NCg0KPiAgRm9yIG9uZSB0aGluZywgSlNPTiBudW1i ZXJzIGFyZW4ndCBzZWxmLWRlbGltaXRpbmcsIHRob3VnaCBzdHJpbmdzDQo+IGFuZCB0cnVlL2Zh bHNlL251bGwgYXJlLg0KDQpTbyB3aGF0PyBJdCBpcyBoYXJkIHRvIGltYWdpbmUgaG93IG51bWJl cnMgbm90IGJlaW5nIHNlbGYtZGVsaW1pdGluZyB3aWxsIGJyZWFrIGFueXRoaW5nIHRoYXQgd2Fz buKAmXQgYWxyZWFkeSBkb2RneS4NCg0KLS0NCkphbWVzIE1hbmdlcg0K From mamille2@cisco.com Thu Oct 3 09:48:35 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C6B821F9473 for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 09:48:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ye4ZDFooi2LX for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 09:48:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84D0F21E80B3 for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 09:33:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=6744; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1380818015; x=1382027615; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=VsliWiyqUN81exZsqDB+ga07n90mjnaM1PQttSfTXaw=; b=Be3TSLESv4vW7Lj0bYj/aybMbimYY/3G5YE3Py9j3gb95SzEgH8UUISh /a99EodQRh6MW3xJcxVkbLMxozkFEjNQrb1HMX7tWfNx5m2VFpi7Q1AVj XEcpu2gTy0RU0AFTeD75Kl00UMiMuMHvDSCl/5TS0YMZH2i5pb6MzXqVH o=; X-Files: smime.p7s : 4136 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhwFABSbTVKtJV2Z/2dsb2JhbABZgwc4UsFCgSEWdIInAQSBCwEqJjAnBBsBBYd4DJthoTiOGIEIM4MkgQQDkCiBMJgogySBcTk X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.90,1027,1371081600"; d="p7s'?scan'208";a="267784892" Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Oct 2013 16:33:32 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x14.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x14.cisco.com [173.37.183.88]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r93GXVPn032174 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 16:33:31 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x11.cisco.com ([169.254.6.253]) by xhc-rcd-x14.cisco.com ([173.37.183.88]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 11:33:31 -0500 From: "Matt Miller (mamille2)" To: JSON WG Thread-Topic: What is a JSON-text? [REVISITED] Thread-Index: AQHOwFZLzW8CgHOE6U+dHM+wYcr+wg== Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2013 16:33:31 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [64.101.72.48] Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D164DDD5-473B-48B1-82A6-447661734789"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [Json] What is a JSON-text? [REVISITED] X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2013 16:48:35 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_D164DDD5-473B-48B1-82A6-447661734789 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hello all, There appears to be rough consensus to reference ECMA-262 edition 5.1. = As James pointed out[1], something will need to be said about what is a = JSON-text; either 4627bis states a difference from ECMA-262 edition 5.1, = or 4627bis states a difference from RFC 4627. There was previously much discussion on this topic[2]. Some have = restated their support. What do others think about changing JSON-text = to allow any JSON value versus just objects or arrays? - Paul Hoffman and Matt Miller [1] < http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/json/current/msg01721.html > [2] < http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/json/current/msg00553.html >= --Apple-Mail=_D164DDD5-473B-48B1-82A6-447661734789 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIMezCCBjQw ggQcoAMCAQICAR4wDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwfTELMAkGA1UEBhMCSUwxFjAUBgNVBAoTDVN0YXJ0 Q29tIEx0ZC4xKzApBgNVBAsTIlNlY3VyZSBEaWdpdGFsIENlcnRpZmljYXRlIFNpZ25pbmcxKTAn BgNVBAMTIFN0YXJ0Q29tIENlcnRpZmljYXRpb24gQXV0aG9yaXR5MB4XDTA3MTAyNDIxMDE1NVoX DTE3MTAyNDIxMDE1NVowgYwxCzAJBgNVBAYTAklMMRYwFAYDVQQKEw1TdGFydENvbSBMdGQuMSsw KQYDVQQLEyJTZWN1cmUgRGlnaXRhbCBDZXJ0aWZpY2F0ZSBTaWduaW5nMTgwNgYDVQQDEy9TdGFy dENvbSBDbGFzcyAxIFByaW1hcnkgSW50ZXJtZWRpYXRlIENsaWVudCBDQTCCASIwDQYJKoZIhvcN AQEBBQADggEPADCCAQoCggEBAMcJg8zOLdgasSmkLhOrlr6KMoOMpohBllVHrdRvEg/q6r8jR+EK 75xCGhR8ToREoqe7zM9/UnC6TS2y9UKTpT1v7RSMzR0t6ndl0TWBuUr/UXBhPk+Kmy7bI4yW4urC +y7P3/1/X7U8ocb8VpH/Clt+4iq7nirMcNh6qJR+xjOhV+VHzQMALuGYn5KZmc1NbJQYclsGkDxD z2UbFqE2+6vIZoL+jb9x4Pa5gNf1TwSDkOkikZB1xtB4ZqtXThaABSONdfmv/Z1pua3FYxnCFmdr /+N2JLKutIxMYqQOJebr/f/h5t95m4JgrM3Y/w7YX9d7YAL9jvN4SydHsU6n65cCAwEAAaOCAa0w ggGpMA8GA1UdEwEB/wQFMAMBAf8wDgYDVR0PAQH/BAQDAgEGMB0GA1UdDgQWBBRTcu2SnODaywFc fH6WNU7y1LhRgjAfBgNVHSMEGDAWgBROC+8apEBbpRdphzDKNGhD0EGu8jBmBggrBgEFBQcBAQRa MFgwJwYIKwYBBQUHMAGGG2h0dHA6Ly9vY3NwLnN0YXJ0c3NsLmNvbS9jYTAtBggrBgEFBQcwAoYh aHR0cDovL3d3dy5zdGFydHNzbC5jb20vc2ZzY2EuY3J0MFsGA1UdHwRUMFIwJ6AloCOGIWh0dHA6 Ly93d3cuc3RhcnRzc2wuY29tL3Nmc2NhLmNybDAnoCWgI4YhaHR0cDovL2NybC5zdGFydHNzbC5j b20vc2ZzY2EuY3JsMIGABgNVHSAEeTB3MHUGCysGAQQBgbU3AQIBMGYwLgYIKwYBBQUHAgEWImh0 dHA6Ly93d3cuc3RhcnRzc2wuY29tL3BvbGljeS5wZGYwNAYIKwYBBQUHAgEWKGh0dHA6Ly93d3cu c3RhcnRzc2wuY29tL2ludGVybWVkaWF0ZS5wZGYwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQADggIBAAqDCH14qywG XLhjjF6uHLkjd02hcdh9hrw+VUsv+q1eeQWB21jWj3kJ96AUlPCoEGZ/ynJNScWy6QMVQjbbMXlt UfO4n4bGGdKo3awPWp61tjAFgraLJgDk+DsSvUD6EowjMTNx25GQgyYJ5RPIzKKR9tQW8gGK+2+R HxkUCTbYFnL6kl8Ch507rUdPPipJ9CgJFws3kDS3gOS5WFMxcjO5DwKfKSETEPrHh7p5shuuNktv sv6hxHTLhiMKX893gxdT3XLS9OKmCv87vkINQcNEcIIoFWbP9HORz9v3vQwR4e3ksLc2JZOAFK+s sS5XMEoznzpihEP0PLc4dCBYjbvSD7kxgDwZ+Aj8Q9PkbvE9sIPP7ON0fz095HdThKjiVJe6vofq +n6b1NBc8XdrQvBmunwxD5nvtTW4vtN6VY7mUCmxsCieuoBJ9OlqmsVWQvifIYf40dJPZkk9YgGT zWLpXDSfLSplbY2LL9C9U0ptvjcDjefLTvqSFc7tw1sEhF0n/qpA2r0GpvkLRDmcSwVyPvmjFBGq Up/pNy8ZuPGQmHwFi2/14+xeSUDG2bwnsYJQG2EdJCB6luQ57GEnTA/yKZSTKI8dDQa8Sd3zfXb1 9mOgSF0bBdXbuKhEpuP9wirslFe6fQ1t5j5R0xi72MZ8ikMu1RQZKCyDbMwazlHiMIIGPzCCBSeg AwIBAgIDBoRIMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAMIGMMQswCQYDVQQGEwJJTDEWMBQGA1UEChMNU3RhcnRD b20gTHRkLjErMCkGA1UECxMiU2VjdXJlIERpZ2l0YWwgQ2VydGlmaWNhdGUgU2lnbmluZzE4MDYG A1UEAxMvU3RhcnRDb20gQ2xhc3MgMSBQcmltYXJ5IEludGVybWVkaWF0ZSBDbGllbnQgQ0EwHhcN MTMwNDMwMjE1NDQyWhcNMTQwNTAyMDUzOTA0WjBbMRkwFwYDVQQNExBiN2F6NndOY0t0R3JtMEpF MRswGQYDVQQDDBJtYW1pbGxlMkBjaXNjby5jb20xITAfBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWEm1hbWlsbGUyQGNp c2NvLmNvbTCCASIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADggEPADCCAQoCggEBAJbKBMsG+9UFTx9uq/bhhXgu vJvO8z7cwKaqqwZhVf5z/kHFyCNijtmTOE+YXjA8mWR4aoBwB5SvGypI/cJUofJ+AlBTC4g+RMx/ K0Ab4/jQqTQz9CDzMOB+Wm+rt8ZJ7A8ZzOJmNDAsf/VvB8l2A1SQz1UsAixgH16NTr8SlblAXEKk 4hwpCudUiNjjQokqJ0H686UBKVorcZSgXaza8XMqGtJF/8mNhR9GQYi7Xht1ky+9LFOrto2daZto KJRwMeVusVdHUeKEQSu7jztw8HchH3KEb7Q+r5X+hhDZoddfKE8d5eyPuhiZdrzv7OlNZ0fSLdx7 3AE3nx9/R5YlXucCAwEAAaOCAtgwggLUMAkGA1UdEwQCMAAwCwYDVR0PBAQDAgSwMB0GA1UdJQQW MBQGCCsGAQUFBwMCBggrBgEFBQcDBDAdBgNVHQ4EFgQUxGd+/qrdVudHrIKkw5xOMY7eaLUwHwYD VR0jBBgwFoAUU3Ltkpzg2ssBXHx+ljVO8tS4UYIwHQYDVR0RBBYwFIESbWFtaWxsZTJAY2lzY28u Y29tMIIBTAYDVR0gBIIBQzCCAT8wggE7BgsrBgEEAYG1NwECAzCCASowLgYIKwYBBQUHAgEWImh0 dHA6Ly93d3cuc3RhcnRzc2wuY29tL3BvbGljeS5wZGYwgfcGCCsGAQUFBwICMIHqMCcWIFN0YXJ0 Q29tIENlcnRpZmljYXRpb24gQXV0aG9yaXR5MAMCAQEagb5UaGlzIGNlcnRpZmljYXRlIHdhcyBp c3N1ZWQgYWNjb3JkaW5nIHRvIHRoZSBDbGFzcyAxIFZhbGlkYXRpb24gcmVxdWlyZW1lbnRzIG9m IHRoZSBTdGFydENvbSBDQSBwb2xpY3ksIHJlbGlhbmNlIG9ubHkgZm9yIHRoZSBpbnRlbmRlZCBw dXJwb3NlIGluIGNvbXBsaWFuY2Ugb2YgdGhlIHJlbHlpbmcgcGFydHkgb2JsaWdhdGlvbnMuMDYG A1UdHwQvMC0wK6ApoCeGJWh0dHA6Ly9jcmwuc3RhcnRzc2wuY29tL2NydHUxLWNybC5jcmwwgY4G CCsGAQUFBwEBBIGBMH8wOQYIKwYBBQUHMAGGLWh0dHA6Ly9vY3NwLnN0YXJ0c3NsLmNvbS9zdWIv Y2xhc3MxL2NsaWVudC9jYTBCBggrBgEFBQcwAoY2aHR0cDovL2FpYS5zdGFydHNzbC5jb20vY2Vy dHMvc3ViLmNsYXNzMS5jbGllbnQuY2EuY3J0MCMGA1UdEgQcMBqGGGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuc3RhcnRz c2wuY29tLzANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFAAOCAQEAlDhXbGEI7lbqUcu5r2JHZaMsbRZda/99ZqODzWGX 0llou9jGccsAWDPPwRRe2+ROpXfH4cuJZElTcLDeZSp/qpXKhjYieFSX8+Ml9sKEj5UOSqQLyoLk PtrIJV12Jk3nuG2Jc0UeEnGwK/aqtzy7+bfEVI0ziyVM2gChHh0RH74KyiwYWknbOTRIkZcz/ulE DVFQp63uj6wfmDNvAUHBAdhKVqA1S/rfP1KcDZpf1NfvwXJibiqTRA6K1EOxTJOP41n/XdvHqHXL RWL2xrOUI9/URANr/ok3OrsuZEMFnAAGefS1bWS/hFtUGVkHGiKEBbyDW7da2ULXbuC7umrQnzGC A28wggNrAgEBMIGUMIGMMQswCQYDVQQGEwJJTDEWMBQGA1UEChMNU3RhcnRDb20gTHRkLjErMCkG A1UECxMiU2VjdXJlIERpZ2l0YWwgQ2VydGlmaWNhdGUgU2lnbmluZzE4MDYGA1UEAxMvU3RhcnRD b20gQ2xhc3MgMSBQcmltYXJ5IEludGVybWVkaWF0ZSBDbGllbnQgQ0ECAwaESDAJBgUrDgMCGgUA oIIBrzAYBgkqhkiG9w0BCQMxCwYJKoZIhvcNAQcBMBwGCSqGSIb3DQEJBTEPFw0xMzEwMDMxNjMz MzFaMCMGCSqGSIb3DQEJBDEWBBRDifXiS1vXmrj9p2EzbnFg8IQDqzCBpQYJKwYBBAGCNxAEMYGX MIGUMIGMMQswCQYDVQQGEwJJTDEWMBQGA1UEChMNU3RhcnRDb20gTHRkLjErMCkGA1UECxMiU2Vj dXJlIERpZ2l0YWwgQ2VydGlmaWNhdGUgU2lnbmluZzE4MDYGA1UEAxMvU3RhcnRDb20gQ2xhc3Mg MSBQcmltYXJ5IEludGVybWVkaWF0ZSBDbGllbnQgQ0ECAwaESDCBpwYLKoZIhvcNAQkQAgsxgZeg gZQwgYwxCzAJBgNVBAYTAklMMRYwFAYDVQQKEw1TdGFydENvbSBMdGQuMSswKQYDVQQLEyJTZWN1 cmUgRGlnaXRhbCBDZXJ0aWZpY2F0ZSBTaWduaW5nMTgwNgYDVQQDEy9TdGFydENvbSBDbGFzcyAx IFByaW1hcnkgSW50ZXJtZWRpYXRlIENsaWVudCBDQQIDBoRIMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUABIIBAEeZ bSQKUdcwFP1L0RFFmEAwsnx1+bZb4xiaJxdbOQxMM3p7OlWHD5nOzDyZsZCc55PmZhGniavzyDYo F8xB3MqDZFF+O0QUF/3ztgzI5s6j0YKw84nT+shnQwro9M2rM9VT/omXLpDsklqcrUfk4t1Q6ZqW MaXXt9+4G1iKW2Un2nCMG6w/a6mtofk4aJa6TWypjbusnGa+qpc/KtUPr/y8l+glhMENAqJpc0Pm b5sEbmNKi/0Mj8KN88BFCsNd3NYitHYkBa6lwGXfBQMgWiL2uuOIH65IQb0a9UAYsrOxqpEq7nxH ySXwlTAU4GTi7XHqPs7KgcZgVKYk8DmE7bwAAAAAAAA= --Apple-Mail=_D164DDD5-473B-48B1-82A6-447661734789-- From tbray@textuality.com Thu Oct 3 10:30:33 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58A2111E8179 for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 10:30:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.976 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RBHnlXu9FhhJ for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 10:30:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vb0-f43.google.com (mail-vb0-f43.google.com [209.85.212.43]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A62DA21E8134 for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 10:10:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vb0-f43.google.com with SMTP id h11so1710827vbh.16 for ; Thu, 03 Oct 2013 10:10:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=rEvwpMFacRAN7dC6ObozBKL93KgftE1+7ctnea7ulYA=; b=e5wYLuENPTvg+CjVu7rqWo93ze9H1RmJjSXwLVHw/hcd7IqZWcCkFmrSRRh25uDBed dOjIFJY07YZPXjNBolg8W1R64bDFCVGoLMvPScPA7dggk9UqK0krmtP0bZMTxaUoSIV2 2JijK3pJsrPPAF+Ryr2xk8ZIRHHXbWEL0a9e89+/ayqFX9nN571nIj1/Dj14a7/cqE3l uW8WZy0padKG+SNOju2fMl83HiBPKON3kJyXHJFm9T8A89+NBy6hXGhFbOR0AadF/5M9 37CKxlkfNYHBONmylChskQaqwnrMvn+Nia7fZlF2vzrDgqAQdeOc2NFlk7TlJMNerVUC 4esQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnpBU58Ht/3cM2OIRqJApeIAZwZRxJ43rr/CSVU3kbWHCgN27MgIXi7Q0G0b5BeqLhyC5JF MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.52.243.138 with SMTP id wy10mr7048142vdc.2.1380820225912; Thu, 03 Oct 2013 10:10:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.174.197 with HTTP; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 10:10:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [96.49.81.176] In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2013 10:10:25 -0700 Message-ID: From: Tim Bray To: "Matt Miller (mamille2)" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c1c4a610834a04e7d943d8 Cc: JSON WG Subject: Re: [Json] What is a JSON-text? [REVISITED] X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2013 17:30:33 -0000 --001a11c1c4a610834a04e7d943d8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I am very strongly against changing the -bis to allow top-level values. - It=E2=80=99s a bad practice - support for it in popular libraries is very patchy. On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Matt Miller (mamille2) wrote: > Hello all, > > There appears to be rough consensus to reference ECMA-262 edition 5.1. A= s > James pointed out[1], something will need to be said about what is a > JSON-text; either 4627bis states a difference from ECMA-262 edition 5.1, = or > 4627bis states a difference from RFC 4627. > > There was previously much discussion on this topic[2]. Some have restate= d > their support. What do others think about changing JSON-text to allow an= y > JSON value versus just objects or arrays? > > > - Paul Hoffman and Matt Miller > > [1] < http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/json/current/msg01721.html > > [2] < http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/json/current/msg00553.html > > _______________________________________________ > json mailing list > json@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json > > --001a11c1c4a610834a04e7d943d8 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I am very strongly against changing the -bis to allow top-= level values.=C2=A0
- It=E2=80=99s a bad practice
- support for it = in popular libraries is very patchy.

On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Matt Miller (mamille2) &l= t;mamille2@cisco.co= m> wrote:
Hello all,

There appears to be rough consensus to reference ECMA-262 edition 5.1. =C2= =A0As James pointed out[1], something will need to be said about what is a = JSON-text; either 4627bis states a difference from ECMA-262 edition 5.1, or= 4627bis states a difference from RFC 4627.

There was previously much discussion on this topic[2]. =C2=A0Some have rest= ated their support. =C2=A0What do others think about changing JSON-text to = allow any JSON value versus just objects or arrays?


- =C2=A0Paul Hoffman and Matt Miller

[1] < http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/json/curre= nt/msg01721.html >
[2] < http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/json/curre= nt/msg00553.html >
______________________________________________= _
json mailing list
json@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json


--001a11c1c4a610834a04e7d943d8-- From pfpschneider@gmail.com Thu Oct 3 10:49:59 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AE9611E817D for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 10:49:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Vx2iAg0KmwFw for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 10:49:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qe0-x233.google.com (mail-qe0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c02::233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32BF821F90AF for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 10:34:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qe0-f51.google.com with SMTP id ne12so1976811qeb.24 for ; Thu, 03 Oct 2013 10:34:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=dD9RnL5vZhFKodtIhxj9vS+hcwKA02rxyZXJauxezuo=; b=eAZhSOSDfhkA46QEPCTfJ44lG0DhYMWRbbR40KiXuvabQ6c8d49277EyhkYsdv37lQ IHSyTdxLCxZql32dyHtQigrrE8iK6xUyB2WySAZAp/aVEfzMpl4QEBunVdTOgs1Tfuon mqqNFAGw8LVPlYI/pfkUTu4Uev7vqKwBOzWj2kElNFPtw29gUeR/iRIEWYoqsJZCjIpb okyQ8EJGCJv/7k6R9icg+a6H5OrpqAy//pJ9ZTZBGf3w2ApcE6b1ogaYS4LiUgm4wFwX bvamgPQolZXZS3cxkoISC0/nxKE9PJeajDg68c83XwYdugaNfVzxatdNY3nZ3unrZCmf HhiQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.49.70.129 with SMTP id m1mr11149490qeu.69.1380821648524; Thu, 03 Oct 2013 10:34:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.49.64.202 with HTTP; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 10:34:08 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2013 10:34:08 -0700 Message-ID: From: Peter Patel-Schneider To: "Matt Miller (mamille2)" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b4721fedbcd1f04e7d99722 Cc: JSON WG Subject: Re: [Json] What is a JSON-text? [REVISITED] X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2013 17:49:59 -0000 --047d7b4721fedbcd1f04e7d99722 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 The proposal is to *change* JSON in a way that would break some current JSON parsers and, worse, break some current consumers of JSON, to get closer syntactic conformance with the ECMAScript JSON implementation. If there is a goal to align JSON with the ECMAScript JSON implementation, then I suggest that requiring EMCAScript numbers is much more important and that even officially requiring support for unpaired UTF-16 surrogate code units is more important. I think that this proposal should not be adopted. Peter F. Patel-Schneider Nuance Communications On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Matt Miller (mamille2) wrote: > Hello all, > > [....] > > There was previously much discussion on this topic[2]. Some have restated > their support. What do others think about changing JSON-text to allow any > JSON value versus just objects or arrays? > > > - Paul Hoffman and Matt Miller > > > [2] < http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/json/current/msg00553.html > > _______________________________________________ > > > --047d7b4721fedbcd1f04e7d99722 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The proposal is to *change* JSON in a way that w= ould break some current JSON parsers and, worse, break some current consume= rs of JSON, to get closer syntactic conformance with the ECMAScript JSON im= plementation.=A0

If there is a goal to align JSON with the ECMAScript JSON impleme= ntation, then I suggest that requiring EMCAScript numbers is much more impo= rtant and that even officially requiring support for unpaired UTF-16 surrog= ate code units is more important.

I think that this proposal should not be adopted.
<= div>
Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Nuance Communications


On Thu, Oct 3, 20= 13 at 9:33 AM, Matt Miller (mamille2) <mamille2@cisco.com> = wrote:
Hello all,

[....]

There was previously much discussion on this topic[2]. =A0Some have restate= d their support. =A0What do others think about changing JSON-text to allow = any JSON value versus just objects or arrays?


- =A0Paul Hoffman and Matt Miller


[2] < http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/json/curre= nt/msg00553.html >
______________________________________________= _



--047d7b4721fedbcd1f04e7d99722-- From stefan@drees.name Thu Oct 3 11:06:53 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0BD621F99DE for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 11:06:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.289 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.289 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MNsjBoqw4Ig1 for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 11:06:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mout.web.de (mout.web.de [212.227.15.3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09A7E21F898A for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 10:52:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from newyork.local.box ([93.129.127.38]) by smtp.web.de (mrweb003) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0Lba5z-1W7gGx2zJj-00lDQ3 for ; Thu, 03 Oct 2013 19:52:00 +0200 Message-ID: <524DAEBF.1020509@drees.name> Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2013 19:51:59 +0200 From: Stefan Drees User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tim Bray References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:KA9SZXvnS4uMSwe/RrqErY7I918V654vlZ6hPtp+I+XNKhpRisH elVJyc9ZDDOOKD7anUkjNAceDr4rQ1k9GKUFdVFwuqvTFl6U+/gIQz5o2ZW9a/t4YKQVJzh a53cy2TJ755dvRdhcRhw88gKlsnGaVDrcAlcdoBdUfsEsL6KVhEYHyfWKYXweQOxZNXe/MP N/5RGhD2mxzaFIMnrLHXQ== Cc: JSON WG , "Matt Miller \(mamille2\)" Subject: Re: [Json] What is a JSON-text? [REVISITED] X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: stefan@drees.name List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2013 18:06:54 -0000 On 2013-10-03 19:10 +02:00, Tim Bray wrote: > I am very strongly against changing the -bis to allow top-level values. > - Its a bad practice > - support for it in popular libraries is very patchy. Me also very strongly against "non-container" top-level entities. Additional rationale: - Add two bytes to wrap the serialized/transported value into array or say six bytes and use eg. {"d":my_top_level_value} should be cheap for the benefit of producing a JSON-text. Even if value is king, values like strings, numbers, true, false or null just wrapped into "no clothes" make me wonder why one would serialize (or forward) them as advertised JSON-text in the first place. > > On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Matt Miller (mamille2) > wrote: > >> Hello all, >> >> There appears to be rough consensus to reference ECMA-262 edition 5.1. As >> James pointed out[1], something will need to be said about what is a >> JSON-text; either 4627bis states a difference from ECMA-262 edition 5.1, or >> 4627bis states a difference from RFC 4627. >> >> There was previously much discussion on this topic[2]. Some have restated >> their support. What do others think about changing JSON-text to allow any >> JSON value versus just objects or arrays? >> >> >> - Paul Hoffman and Matt Miller >> >> [1] < http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/json/current/msg01721.html > >> [2] < http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/json/current/msg00553.html > >> ... ["Stefan"] From nico@cryptonector.com Thu Oct 3 11:28:45 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BBFC21E80B0 for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 11:28:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.977 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bGK5v1Rr+pVa for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 11:28:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from homiemail-a103.g.dreamhost.com (caiajhbdcbef.dreamhost.com [208.97.132.145]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E480C21E80EB for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 11:18:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from homiemail-a103.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a103.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 984CB2007F211 for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 11:18:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h= mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from :to:cc:content-type; s=cryptonector.com; bh=+hBZ8N4rpkwocMYOAbqj 6sUedk4=; b=zAGXGsY0A521YzHBFTjsVXLxrvTdgS0YoCTKIHsr3orIIlNkVjR2 aHn7Z2DmdMeGImKfyLBM9Wq01a7xa6l/FHzSS1GENc08WjGuortl8xPen0xSrsyt 7VI5sFQvXTPXLTh3pxLmJ9oPQmgDQfBCd2LUQQpaGZJTf0V5Z9NxObU= Received: from mail-wi0-f179.google.com (mail-wi0-f179.google.com [209.85.212.179]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by homiemail-a103.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4D1CE2007F20F for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 11:18:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wi0-f179.google.com with SMTP id hm2so437938wib.12 for ; Thu, 03 Oct 2013 11:18:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=rrjwyLGTz2DujbMfo1DjZXDsXbq9m4iEJV3u+ydrjFA=; b=Cj9RsNbWc/6s4CFRz5BCX1Eupr3MHWo2amc5HvG6dPIwLgIGUmOF1Ul3UcsTOXEnec GLrjgLoQXY8kNJjOX5ap4kTIe4VmlnvRTQrwO+candaohGEfLkUMTRwpfg9ayitnuIu1 Z8Q/9mymCJ3RiasjPxXL3AtCJtQ3oahUMmqO3nZMMts+wXi/GwR6qDpfP+fLDej/V2LR RE5/akyMuKMa0+UcqfAs7WRHmtZH1GfeG+TS3ZjALEWwXmZXUAwSs1w961/1WEE65e8p QW/dMaPxABlnKjuchjF8xumnDp2xdUFigFI09ipYWdP8fyjLokVMf9JQmlH9gARDHxqk QiNA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.73.239 with SMTP id o15mr3705649wiv.36.1380824321836; Thu, 03 Oct 2013 11:18:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.165.5 with HTTP; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 11:18:41 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2013 13:18:41 -0500 Message-ID: From: Nico Williams To: Peter Patel-Schneider Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: JSON WG , "Matt Miller \(mamille2\)" Subject: Re: [Json] What is a JSON-text? [REVISITED] X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2013 18:28:45 -0000 On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Peter Patel-Schneider wrote: > The proposal is to *change* JSON in a way that would break some current JSON > parsers and, worse, break some current consumers of JSON, to get closer > syntactic conformance with the ECMAScript JSON implementation. Not really: you can have two definitions of top-level and describe their interoperability characteristics (the original array-or-object interops best). In practice many, many JSON parsers already support at least an option for top-level value types other than array/object. > If there is a goal to align JSON with the ECMAScript JSON implementation, > then I suggest that requiring EMCAScript numbers is much more important and > that even officially requiring support for unpaired UTF-16 surrogate code > units is more important. I think the OP wanted one cheap ECMAScript compat improvement. I agree that this is the "cheapest" such improvement. All the others you propose have significantly more impact on existing implementations for them to be able to support the ECMAScript variant. I'd settle for noting the differences between IETF JSON and ECMAScript. Nico -- From nico@cryptonector.com Thu Oct 3 11:34:09 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B7D121E80DE for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 11:34:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.977 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NxizsYIYSlbP for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 11:33:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from homiemail-a96.g.dreamhost.com (caiajhbdcbef.dreamhost.com [208.97.132.145]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCC4F21F8D62 for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 11:24:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from homiemail-a96.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a96.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70B6E3B8076 for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 11:24:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h= mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from :to:cc:content-type; s=cryptonector.com; bh=29s4JY1b9IjC7P6RoDem 57wgdvs=; b=xF+eQyp2gyID0cxfO502Ehr6mMFd+BbdEWGDbfAbfJt9BqAaJsyu /3DBG0k1aQZsAxhp/8F8yZtLRNpCrvzBZWEP+kR/3wdjdZhPFSrwNLaPMC4W/tx2 j4co93sgfyxln6JPxzzXLUTiWtcj3ZhGKd/wC4f5cO9TbmEu2l0OPWU= Received: from mail-wg0-f49.google.com (mail-wg0-f49.google.com [74.125.82.49]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by homiemail-a96.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 18FBE3B8077 for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 11:24:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wg0-f49.google.com with SMTP id l18so2887875wgh.28 for ; Thu, 03 Oct 2013 11:24:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=1w/vwYB5LTZ5G8ifUD7amragrRzaX0NgUxDr7e0jpXo=; b=i86kjjn/G1F7a1zVxks36bjR4/JHeqNKWofSC7wU7uwDa2p0ML3DTqTQt5u2JRi7wo 0CWfhTJxQpJiBIJ5Evfaw9IKm32rrgVnwzsom4WcDVRabTCQBoBkbFxE+M1mKhbAo+v+ rg8Y1cv0nq8BMZj54FDUexqrfD89TzUJwkvEXII1BrV2TNUfqcbgc/UT1TcbrICUqNBb MmIKZancZm5WsUW4p5hlsc0F+TCd7bvDXUrM02iO8fejgImRx5Kzlsn5YA59EOoarW+b e7WjtHT8vIARa9WV85YVjq+7UeWiCHUgCSeODr5Ks27H1UDsYpD4M5XxZ1dy+W4Xzp3h eVzQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.172.103 with SMTP id bb7mr2417160wjc.69.1380824655807; Thu, 03 Oct 2013 11:24:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.165.5 with HTTP; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 11:24:15 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <524DAEBF.1020509@drees.name> References: <524DAEBF.1020509@drees.name> Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2013 13:24:15 -0500 Message-ID: From: Nico Williams To: "stefan@drees.name" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: "Matt Miller \(mamille2\)" , Tim Bray , JSON WG Subject: Re: [Json] What is a JSON-text? [REVISITED] X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2013 18:34:09 -0000 On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Stefan Drees wrote: > Me also very strongly against "non-container" top-level entities. > > Additional rationale: > - Add two bytes to wrap the serialized/transported value into array or > say six bytes and use eg. {"d":my_top_level_value} should be cheap > for the benefit of producing a JSON-text. That's very lame; see below for rationale. > Even if value is king, values like strings, numbers, true, false or null > just wrapped into "no clothes" make me wonder why one would serialize (or > forward) them as advertised JSON-text in the first place. Because JSON isn't always used to transport values across networks (where it'd be silly to send scalar values with all the overheade of HTTP and TCP/IP, say). JSON is often used for interop between local components, where the overhead that would make laughable the use of scalar values at the top-level just doesn't apply. E.g., the Python bindings to libjq. Indeed, here your suggestion that I call "lame" *adds* undesirable overhead. "But JSON is an interchange format for networking" is not a good answer to that. It's a good interchange format, full stop. The train with JSON used for local interchange purposes left the station. This is why parsers commonly have an option to accept scalar values at the top-level. Nico -- From nico@cryptonector.com Thu Oct 3 11:41:58 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8017221F94FA for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 11:41:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.977 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JUGMKazACmZC for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 11:41:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from homiemail-a67.g.dreamhost.com (caiajhbdcbef.dreamhost.com [208.97.132.145]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C38121E808D for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 11:33:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from homiemail-a67.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a67.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C5B927BC061 for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 11:33:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h= mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from :to:cc:content-type; s=cryptonector.com; bh=YVvC72TtsdTDIHO/2j38 D58DTt4=; b=B6LHv7myu/k1q8DFBOUGosgyIGrLF0ywluPRIqBjWZtgoWw/vRNn swTSyh6D/tFbmtLuxhGC6hTiDyAaPEqf/AEXscbmnJTMkV8KrwYlsp8LND0o1SNl tyi4YZiTFyOCgWGeF2RWtIkVe01GnieCDwIQILkbSzbgwy7azFh/HxQ= Received: from mail-we0-f179.google.com (mail-we0-f179.google.com [74.125.82.179]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by homiemail-a67.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B9E0A27BC05D for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 11:33:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-we0-f179.google.com with SMTP id x55so3331185wes.10 for ; Thu, 03 Oct 2013 11:33:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=xOnB0u0A0N8iZ4UsSUKx68x05fhfpbDBI3YEKQYynsI=; b=Kz9FIjA8oTBJi/Im+XHaBZAHagIQC0WfASw0QRs+UQOAuRd/+m3rJBVi7CgCs6iJdK FpvL+RhPv8UsO0YN+Osh6sCQF1cMx1ddmt3Sw2jOJ3NiMOjEIiUH+zhR+mOmMt1bS8fM uVL465bDTM582PvSZ993DgWmzAMXlC4J7mpAiuLhNwAk/Zgath+HkpXnFQKMkJgCVpV6 2u2Jyn7OKmAsfH2lth/rr3az9EiuxOEEeJ43qaRo+H4fCXu/WX2vYHguumQOyycVuOw6 7+ujra3HE3tJCotonY64CnQo7334VO9vmp+Jo9HbnjN2+H1MpxzvDmemKM1NNor+rKdy OeQw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.198.79 with SMTP id ja15mr3802556wic.36.1380825182272; Thu, 03 Oct 2013 11:33:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.165.5 with HTTP; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 11:33:02 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <524DAEBF.1020509@drees.name> Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2013 13:33:02 -0500 Message-ID: From: Nico Williams To: "stefan@drees.name" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: "Matt Miller \(mamille2\)" , Tim Bray , JSON WG Subject: Re: [Json] What is a JSON-text? [REVISITED] X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2013 18:41:58 -0000 On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 1:24 PM, Nico Williams wrote: > Because JSON isn't always used to transport values across networks > (where it'd be silly to send scalar values with all the overheade of > HTTP and TCP/IP, say). JSON is often used for interop between local > components, where the overhead that would make laughable the use of > scalar values at the top-level just doesn't apply. E.g., the Python > bindings to libjq. Indeed, here your suggestion that I call "lame" > *adds* undesirable overhead. I should add that the overhead is also developer overhead: having to create the array/object to contain the solitary scalar value, then destructure it to get it back. I don't care if you have two JSON text definitions (see previous post) or just allow all value types at the top-level. It's the same to me, as long as parser implementors know to provide the option for it (if they don't just bleeping allow all value types at the top-level outright, no option necessary, especially so for those implementations that use run-time typing, which includes several C implementations, FYI). Nico -- From markus.lanthaler@gmx.net Thu Oct 3 11:53:56 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1604321F9948 for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 11:53:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.758 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.758 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT=1.449, RCVD_ILLEGAL_IP=1.908] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JpeFK90VYBjr for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 11:53:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6ACDA21F8445 for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 11:43:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Vostro3500 ([2.34.217.54]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx102) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MXmpv-1VMbBy1QL1-00WpLL for ; Thu, 03 Oct 2013 20:43:58 +0200 From: "Markus Lanthaler" To: "'JSON WG'" References: In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2013 20:43:55 +0200 Message-ID: <01fa01cec068$84932290$8db967b0$@lanthaler@gmx.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: AQHOwFZLzW8CgHOE6U+dHM+wYcr+wpnjTzFA Content-Language: de X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:cREsGfQNSkYywZ/ei16ClJ8DO0vXsDbjwLqhQMFYyZ6nQfZr1MY xIWbRIsfXGjqLn74sA71r6nWWgLOQckrD65iu3RDYxWky5BTvUrZYUEu0o8p1g/666KLci9 PJzcCCK8rxaUpnRQyYf14JCosP9X/s0z6l2xqtPQ0q9H8akK4rH6/4P2SFsq6g46ZBrhvyY d1pZntKB6h7yUmVyJ9v4Q== Subject: Re: [Json] What is a JSON-text? [REVISITED] X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2013 18:53:57 -0000 On Thursday, October 03, 2013 6:34 PM, Matt Miller (mamille2) wrote: > There appears to be rough consensus to reference ECMA-262 edition 5.1. > As James pointed out[1], something will need to be said about what is a > JSON-text; either 4627bis states a difference from ECMA-262 edition > 5.1, or 4627bis states a difference from RFC 4627. > > There was previously much discussion on this topic[2]. Some have > restated their support. What do others think about changing JSON-text > to allow any JSON value versus just objects or arrays? I'm strongly against this. I think it is a bad idea in general - for a serialization format, not JavaScript - and it would break a lot of existing systems. -- Markus Lanthaler @markuslanthaler From cromis@gmail.com Thu Oct 3 12:07:24 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8262921F9C89 for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 12:07:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.978 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bgDNuiYzC8KD for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 12:07:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qc0-x232.google.com (mail-qc0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A26D521F8934 for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 11:56:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qc0-f178.google.com with SMTP id r5so1959300qcx.9 for ; Thu, 03 Oct 2013 11:56:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=W3esNoxo59ui49nEQy0HfrWO+ExdTTly7unkyqc/+SY=; b=Z4/XPZJaQ/z7oD4dBwXV7duHDAKARB6GDtTrt35Rtt0vPKtFqA+/sgUmh01qfRcA1Q MbXe8w6/HkC82bobD7VvqBqWiiaUMbrnzZBrCu/Hk5bS6QecNucHWKJQy1A5u3kj3rvn p2vnZydeElPKB6FaT2CDHIOyQDpmaoTwqu9lRXy5qHoXS3rZcCS/jidD5Q8tXRx7EmvN MybCMvbNph6jPLubNKe4o/qKBu5s0wN/yzCENGjOro386oixJA4BqrEFx+zHEt4MDbEK zO/GRTz8UXNdUIbtp9D/X3HGngnNyUeF+mKIM0QV7Q1Bqw216zH6JTXbyuqFfoF7TWvn 7Eig== X-Received: by 10.49.6.232 with SMTP id e8mr11839500qea.18.1380826588381; Thu, 03 Oct 2013 11:56:28 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: cromis@gmail.com Received: by 10.49.107.3 with HTTP; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 11:56:08 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <524DAEBF.1020509@drees.name> From: Jacob Davies Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2013 11:56:08 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: wI3uf61ot__FBkEMhD-mknK3UCM Message-ID: To: Nico Williams Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: Tim Bray , JSON WG , "stefan@drees.name" , "Matt Miller \(mamille2\)" Subject: Re: [Json] What is a JSON-text? [REVISITED] X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2013 19:07:24 -0000 On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Nico Williams wrote: > "But JSON is an interchange format for networking" is not a good > answer to that. It's a good interchange format, full stop. The train > with JSON used for local interchange purposes left the station. This > is why parsers commonly have an option to accept scalar values at the > top-level. As I said in the last discussion: the asymmetry of a JSON document having to be an object or an array while a JSON value can be an object or an array or a string or a number or a boolean or null is unintuitive and has no principled rationale. The arguments against allowing values at top level are taste-based, not based on principle or practice. In the systems I work on we treat "JSON serializability" as meaning "transformable into a JSON value". Not a JSON text. The natural serialization for many types is a string or a number or a boolean. So, why do I suddenly have to act differently when I am sending something on the wire? What is the principled distinction between a JSON value in memory and a JSON text sent over the network? Why am I supposed to put this in an envelope just because network transport is involved? Allowing values at the top level is not a breaking change since the JSON spec says that implementations may reject texts they don't like. In practice, it is widely interoperable already. From paul.hoffman@vpnc.org Thu Oct 3 12:09:56 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2532421F89A5 for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 12:09:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hUNYJHcVccZ3 for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 12:09:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85B3A21F8BD8 for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 11:59:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [165.227.249.247] (sn80.proper.com [75.101.18.80]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.7/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r93IxF1T077137 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 11:59:16 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: hoffman.proper.com: Host sn80.proper.com [75.101.18.80] claimed to be [165.227.249.247] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) From: Paul Hoffman In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2013 11:59:15 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: To: JSON WG X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) Subject: Re: [Json] What is a JSON-text? [REVISITED] X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2013 19:09:56 -0000 On Oct 3, 2013, at 9:33 AM, Matt Miller (mamille2) = wrote: > There was previously much discussion on this topic[2]. Some have = restated their support. What do others think about changing JSON-text = to allow any JSON value versus just objects or arrays? I'm +.5 on the proposal. It would make 4627bis more aligned with = ECMAScript, and there is no rationale given for "a JSON-text can be less = that what you think it can be". This change will make some parsers that = are 4627-but-not-ECMAScript compliant become not compliant. To me, the = latter is not as important as the former. --Paul Hoffman= From stefan@drees.name Thu Oct 3 12:40:46 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D800F21E80F4 for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 12:40:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.011 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.011 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, J_CHICKENPOX_24=0.6, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AcmJF1rOU9a5 for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 12:40:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mout.web.de (mout.web.de [212.227.15.4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91F5221F9B6A for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 12:22:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from newyork.local.box ([93.129.127.38]) by smtp.web.de (mrweb103) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0M8iPI-1VXMOA3fEy-00CEYZ for ; Thu, 03 Oct 2013 21:21:59 +0200 Message-ID: <524DC3D5.4010806@drees.name> Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2013 21:21:57 +0200 From: Stefan Drees User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Nico Williams References: <524DAEBF.1020509@drees.name> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:h7ZKRnScVo+C2FGXK9AsmHs7r8PJlaaWA/Fx6pI5KBDaKK+5W7O NeXX/n4lxaSMjXhXKytzUNAJmkdRGBqeUtIfEAT6wLMloQ/2GEK8ijgfmBDfIFi+bGjoaPX ZWOTigm46q6CllcpA0SQ73i4dIb82m1rsjkhDYyf9sMgev3A62aN9hzhfenUd8K9bM4EINP 0qxU9nEZW/dXJoObvJQWw== Cc: "Matt Miller \(mamille2\)" , Tim Bray , JSON WG Subject: Re: [Json] What is a JSON-text? [REVISITED] X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: stefan@drees.name List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2013 19:40:46 -0000 On 2013-10-03 20:24 +02:00, Nico Williams wrote: > On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Stefan Drees wrote: >> Me also very strongly against "non-container" top-level entities. >> >> Additional rationale: >> - Add two bytes to wrap the serialized/transported value into array or >> say six bytes and use eg. {"d":my_top_level_value} should be cheap >> for the benefit of producing a JSON-text. > > That's very lame; see below for rationale. > >> Even if value is king, values like strings, numbers, true, false or null >> just wrapped into "no clothes" make me wonder why one would serialize (or >> forward) them as advertised JSON-text in the first place. > > Because JSON isn't always used to transport values across networks > (where it'd be silly to send scalar values with all the overheade of > HTTP and TCP/IP, say). JSON is often used for interop between local > components, where the overhead that would make laughable the use of > scalar values at the top-level just doesn't apply. E.g., the Python > bindings to libjq. Indeed, here your suggestion that I call "lame" > *adds* undesirable overhead. > > "But JSON is an interchange format for networking" is not a good > answer to that. It's a good interchange format, full stop. The train > with JSON used for local interchange purposes left the station. This > is why parsers commonly have an option to accept scalar values at the > top-level. ... and no one stops implementers nor users from parametrizing a parser to adapt to special situations. Say there is a document named pi.json that contains the text /3.14/ (but without the slashes) that may be the (best effort) serialized representation of the "number" pi or just the first four bytes, as the file became truncated (or the local message content if you are so inclined). As a JSON text wraped inside array or object, the situation would be clear, in the above "unwrapped" case it is not anymore. So I think, the above '[...]values like strings, numbers, true, false or null just wrapped into "no clothes" make me wonder why one would serialize (or forward) them as advertised JSON-text in the first place.' remains as it stands, doesn't it? Whatever un-"lame" and un-"laughable" ;-) "train has left the station", I guess that without making "wrapping" mandatory for JSON-text, one might consider JSON-izing every binary protocol on earth into such an unwrapped JSON+* channel (by combining the unlimited "number" feature of the JSON rfc and "interpreting" some representation bilaterally negotiated as the underlying bit pattern for the stored/transmitted binary protocol message). The set of relations, where one uses JSON as a means to communicate between otherwise unrelated components, that are on one hand so closely coupled, that no wrapping is needed, but on the other hand so far apart, that they cannot accept non JSON-text (as it stands now) looks similar to the empty set to me, but I am sure, people will let me soon know of exotic situations ... :-) ["Stefan"] From sayrer@gmail.com Thu Oct 3 14:10:07 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A54421E8085 for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 14:10:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id taQ243v0ay58 for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 14:09:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wi0-x236.google.com (mail-wi0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60DD821E8088 for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 13:57:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wi0-f182.google.com with SMTP id ez12so666771wid.3 for ; Thu, 03 Oct 2013 13:57:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=1PPDNsgmeV9LTDvTutSMaHLdlI0UWBFEDRhs8NnBV0I=; b=NcGJiTjMV2CRPbQTnYbjkiaxdZA3MXht7Amss42xC/GJlwL32cJj3OmeCvAYmJ5kF6 6vg9IOdq9UO0DQpQUSYjS8yehzx8I/GBU8TWdd063mrSOU61GmpPp4yTdJt+Bp22pOEC 7vQS6vgmRkS/i/MpZEwY9X8O7rKD1A7SgKNXA5NxQ6fQEDnZPSX1en8ip+qr9ubGL3Hs 1K3aSqEr8QXUGbziEYWG1HuDSEMOO2wfrsz+/UHsAEHGf9s7i3ony58ycLpZDzM+Xtla WCaQn4nXLtK+FmXQQExnuYaHDV4fnhqT8lPn20W0LoUqr2vD+ZsznfcPieIHn3spWSKO uwFg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.158.67 with SMTP id ws3mr9116377wjb.5.1380833849536; Thu, 03 Oct 2013 13:57:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.123.41 with HTTP; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 13:57:29 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2013 13:57:29 -0700 Message-ID: From: R S To: Paul Hoffman Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0122eca41879e804e7dc6f90 Cc: JSON WG Subject: Re: [Json] What is a JSON-text? [REVISITED] X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2013 21:10:07 -0000 --089e0122eca41879e804e7dc6f90 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > > > On Oct 3, 2013, at 9:33 AM, Matt Miller (mamille2) > wrote: > > > There was previously much discussion on this topic[2]. Some have > restated their support. What do others think about changing JSON-text to > allow any JSON value versus just objects or arrays? > > I'm +.5 on the proposal. It would make 4627bis more aligned with > ECMAScript, and there is no rationale given for "a JSON-text can be less > that what you think it can be". This change will make some parsers that are > 4627-but-not-ECMAScript compliant become not compliant. To me, the latter > is not as important as the former. In the abstract, I think matching ECMAScript is a good idea. If I were choosing a parser, I would definitely pick one that supported any JSON value at the root. As a sender, I wouldn't want the RFC to lead me to believe that every JSON parser could handle the ECMAScript root-level primitive JSON values at this time. Having a note that points out this variation exists is a good idea. Some other group of people can come back in 10 years and write down what happened (maybe the note will tempt everyone to support primitive root values, maybe not). - Rob --089e0122eca41879e804e7dc6f90 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Paul Hoffman <paul.h= offman@vpnc.org> wrote:
<no hat>

On Oct 3, 2013, at 9:33 AM, Matt Miller (mamille2) <mamille2@cisco.com> wrote:

> There was previously much discussion on this topic[2]. =A0Some have re= stated their support. =A0What do others think about changing JSON-text to a= llow any JSON value versus just objects or arrays?

I'm +.5 on the proposal. It would make 4627bis more aligned with = ECMAScript, and there is no rationale given for "a JSON-text can be le= ss that what you think it can be". This change will make some parsers = that are 4627-but-not-ECMAScript compliant become not compliant. To me, the= latter is not as important as the former.

In the abstract, I think matching ECMAScript is a good = idea. If I were choosing a parser, I would definitely pick one that support= ed any JSON value at the root.

As a sender, I woul= dn't want the RFC to lead me to believe that every JSON parser could ha= ndle the ECMAScript root-level primitive JSON values at this time. Having a= note that points out this variation exists is a good idea.

Some other group of people can come back in 10 years an= d write down what happened (maybe the note will tempt everyone to support p= rimitive root values, maybe not).

- Rob
=A0
--089e0122eca41879e804e7dc6f90-- From masinter@adobe.com Thu Oct 3 14:19:05 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3A1C21F8443 for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 14:19:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_24=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fx4gLZxuPINb for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 14:18:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod6og126.obsmtp.com (exprod6og126.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A89AA11E80D1 for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 14:09:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from outbound-smtp-2.corp.adobe.com ([193.104.215.16]) by exprod6ob126.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUk3dFyltxqR5F7UIwO7eQOHyQH4OkZXB@postini.com; Thu, 03 Oct 2013 14:09:47 PDT Received: from inner-relay-2.corp.adobe.com (mail-321.pac.adobe.com [153.32.1.52]) by outbound-smtp-2.corp.adobe.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id r93L9f49012810; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 14:09:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nacas02.corp.adobe.com (nacas02.corp.adobe.com [10.8.189.100]) by inner-relay-2.corp.adobe.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id r93L9eOU013133; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 14:09:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com ([10.8.189.95]) by nacas02.corp.adobe.com ([10.8.189.100]) with mapi; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 14:09:40 -0700 From: Larry Masinter To: "stefan@drees.name" , Nico Williams Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2013 14:09:40 -0700 Thread-Topic: [Json] What is a JSON-text? [REVISITED] Thread-Index: Ac7AcHhFkHj5CuLSRc6na0igxoKHUQAC4BxQ Message-ID: References: <524DAEBF.1020509@drees.name> <524DC3D5.4010806@drees.name> In-Reply-To: <524DC3D5.4010806@drees.name> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: JSON WG , Tim Bray , "Matt Miller \(mamille2\)" Subject: Re: [Json] What is a JSON-text? [REVISITED] X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2013 21:19:06 -0000 I think you might make more headway if you think about the primary role of = 4627 and 4627bis as registering Internet Media Types. Consider, for example, having two med= ia types text/json and text/json+ the first of which is 4627 compatible, and the second (text/json+) allowing= "non-container" top level. Everything that is valid text/json would also be valid text/json+ with the = same interpretation. Or, you could keep the same internet media type and just declare it an exte= nsion, like image/gif changed for GIF89a. Or Postscript changed and still kept application/postscript. Yes, it's a change, no it fits within the conventio= n of Internet Media Types to accept extensions that are lexically distinguishable. > -----Original Message----- > From: json-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:json-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Stefan Drees > Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 12:22 PM > To: Nico Williams > Cc: Matt Miller (mamille2); Tim Bray; JSON WG > Subject: Re: [Json] What is a JSON-text? [REVISITED] >=20 > On 2013-10-03 20:24 +02:00, Nico Williams wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Stefan Drees wrote= : > >> Me also very strongly against "non-container" top-level entities. > >> > >> Additional rationale: > >> - Add two bytes to wrap the serialized/transported value into array or > >> say six bytes and use eg. {"d":my_top_level_value} should be cheap > >> for the benefit of producing a JSON-text. > > > > That's very lame; see below for rationale. > > > >> Even if value is king, values like strings, numbers, true, false or nu= ll > >> just wrapped into "no clothes" make me wonder why one would serialize = (or > >> forward) them as advertised JSON-text in the first place. > > > > Because JSON isn't always used to transport values across networks > > (where it'd be silly to send scalar values with all the overheade of > > HTTP and TCP/IP, say). JSON is often used for interop between local > > components, where the overhead that would make laughable the use of > > scalar values at the top-level just doesn't apply. E.g., the Python > > bindings to libjq. Indeed, here your suggestion that I call "lame" > > *adds* undesirable overhead. > > > > "But JSON is an interchange format for networking" is not a good > > answer to that. It's a good interchange format, full stop. The train > > with JSON used for local interchange purposes left the station. This > > is why parsers commonly have an option to accept scalar values at the > > top-level. >=20 >=20 > ... and no one stops implementers nor users from parametrizing a > parser to adapt to special situations. >=20 > Say there is a document named pi.json that contains the text /3.14/ (but > without the slashes) that may be the (best effort) serialized > representation of the "number" pi or just the first four bytes, as the > file became truncated (or the local message content if you are so > inclined). As a JSON text wraped inside array or object, the situation > would be clear, in the above "unwrapped" case it is not anymore. >=20 > So I think, the above '[...]values like strings, numbers, true, false or > null just wrapped into "no clothes" make me wonder why one would > serialize (or forward) them as advertised JSON-text in the first place.' > remains as it stands, doesn't it? >=20 > Whatever un-"lame" and un-"laughable" ;-) "train has left the station", > I guess that without making "wrapping" mandatory for JSON-text, one > might consider JSON-izing every binary protocol on earth into such an > unwrapped JSON+* channel (by combining the unlimited "number" feature of > the JSON rfc and "interpreting" some representation bilaterally > negotiated as the underlying bit pattern for the stored/transmitted > binary protocol message). >=20 > The set of relations, where one uses JSON as a means to communicate > between otherwise unrelated components, that are on one hand so closely > coupled, that no wrapping is needed, but on the other hand so far apart, > that they cannot accept non JSON-text (as it stands now) looks similar > to the empty set to me, but I am sure, people will let me soon know of > exotic situations ... :-) >=20 > ["Stefan"] >=20 > _______________________________________________ > json mailing list > json@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json From mnot@mnot.net Thu Oct 3 15:58:38 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 888DC21F997D for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 15:58:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.702 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.702 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.158, BAYES_00=-2.599, FRT_ADOBE2=2.455, J_CHICKENPOX_24=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id T4pMcBeNIa9z for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 15:58:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net (mxout-07.mxes.net [216.86.168.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D64111E80FB for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 15:58:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.64] (unknown [118.209.193.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9C6C422E200; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 18:58:11 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) From: Mark Nottingham In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 08:58:06 +1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <8426C572-0C47-4905-9BB9-8044087EC6CA@mnot.net> References: <524DAEBF.1020509@drees.name> <524DC3D5.4010806@drees.name> To: Larry Masinter X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) Cc: Tim Bray , Nico Williams , "Matt Miller \(mamille2\)" , "stefan@drees.name" , JSON WG Subject: Re: [Json] What is a JSON-text? [REVISITED] X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2013 22:58:39 -0000 What Larry said. The RFC is very clearly defined to not allow this. The reasons for = allowing other top-level values make total sense, but they're not JSON. = One language that uses JSON allows more, but that's not JSON, else Crock = would have written something different down. Allowing more top-level values in text/json does *not* help interop; it = hurts it. OTOH doing it in another, separate media type (along with all of the = other things we want to fix up) is perfectly workable; it improves = interop for those who choose to use it. Regards, P.S. What we need to realise here is that just because we have the pen = for bis, doesn't mean we can change the reality of deployed = implementations, except with *very* gentle nudges over long periods of = time. Or, put another way: On 04/10/2013, at 7:09 AM, Larry Masinter wrote: > I think you might make more headway if you think about the primary = role of 4627 and 4627bis > as registering Internet Media Types. Consider, for example, having = two media types >=20 > text/json and text/json+ >=20 > the first of which is 4627 compatible, and the second (text/json+) = allowing "non-container" > top level. >=20 > Everything that is valid text/json would also be valid text/json+ with = the same interpretation. >=20 > Or, you could keep the same internet media type and just declare it an = extension, > like image/gif changed for GIF89a. Or Postscript changed and still = kept > application/postscript. Yes, it's a change, no it fits within the = convention of Internet > Media Types to accept extensions that are lexically distinguishable. >=20 >=20 >=20 >> -----Original Message----- >> From: json-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:json-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf = Of >> Stefan Drees >> Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 12:22 PM >> To: Nico Williams >> Cc: Matt Miller (mamille2); Tim Bray; JSON WG >> Subject: Re: [Json] What is a JSON-text? [REVISITED] >>=20 >> On 2013-10-03 20:24 +02:00, Nico Williams wrote: >>> On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Stefan Drees = wrote: >>>> Me also very strongly against "non-container" top-level entities. >>>>=20 >>>> Additional rationale: >>>> - Add two bytes to wrap the serialized/transported value into array = or >>>> say six bytes and use eg. {"d":my_top_level_value} should be = cheap >>>> for the benefit of producing a JSON-text. >>>=20 >>> That's very lame; see below for rationale. >>>=20 >>>> Even if value is king, values like strings, numbers, true, false or = null >>>> just wrapped into "no clothes" make me wonder why one would = serialize (or >>>> forward) them as advertised JSON-text in the first place. >>>=20 >>> Because JSON isn't always used to transport values across networks >>> (where it'd be silly to send scalar values with all the overheade of >>> HTTP and TCP/IP, say). JSON is often used for interop between local >>> components, where the overhead that would make laughable the use of >>> scalar values at the top-level just doesn't apply. E.g., the Python >>> bindings to libjq. Indeed, here your suggestion that I call "lame" >>> *adds* undesirable overhead. >>>=20 >>> "But JSON is an interchange format for networking" is not a good >>> answer to that. It's a good interchange format, full stop. The = train >>> with JSON used for local interchange purposes left the station. = This >>> is why parsers commonly have an option to accept scalar values at = the >>> top-level. >>=20 >>=20 >> ... and no one stops implementers nor users from parametrizing a >> parser to adapt to special situations. >>=20 >> Say there is a document named pi.json that contains the text /3.14/ = (but >> without the slashes) that may be the (best effort) serialized >> representation of the "number" pi or just the first four bytes, as = the >> file became truncated (or the local message content if you are so >> inclined). As a JSON text wraped inside array or object, the = situation >> would be clear, in the above "unwrapped" case it is not anymore. >>=20 >> So I think, the above '[...]values like strings, numbers, true, false = or >> null just wrapped into "no clothes" make me wonder why one would >> serialize (or forward) them as advertised JSON-text in the first = place.' >> remains as it stands, doesn't it? >>=20 >> Whatever un-"lame" and un-"laughable" ;-) "train has left the = station", >> I guess that without making "wrapping" mandatory for JSON-text, one >> might consider JSON-izing every binary protocol on earth into such an >> unwrapped JSON+* channel (by combining the unlimited "number" feature = of >> the JSON rfc and "interpreting" some representation bilaterally >> negotiated as the underlying bit pattern for the stored/transmitted >> binary protocol message). >>=20 >> The set of relations, where one uses JSON as a means to communicate >> between otherwise unrelated components, that are on one hand so = closely >> coupled, that no wrapping is needed, but on the other hand so far = apart, >> that they cannot accept non JSON-text (as it stands now) looks = similar >> to the empty set to me, but I am sure, people will let me soon know = of >> exotic situations ... :-) >>=20 >> ["Stefan"] >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> json mailing list >> json@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json > _______________________________________________ > json mailing list > json@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ From James.H.Manger@team.telstra.com Thu Oct 3 18:46:08 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF0DC11E80D7 for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 18:46:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.327 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.327 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.227, BAYES_00=-2.599, FRT_ADOBE2=2.455, HELO_EQ_AU=0.377, HOST_EQ_AU=0.327, RELAY_IS_203=0.994] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iG0-FbrAORRo for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 18:45:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ipxbno.tcif.telstra.com.au (ipxbno.tcif.telstra.com.au [203.35.82.204]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1350C21E80A8 for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 18:45:45 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.90,1030,1371045600"; d="scan'208";a="151616672" Received: from unknown (HELO ipcani.tcif.telstra.com.au) ([10.97.216.200]) by ipobni.tcif.telstra.com.au with ESMTP; 04 Oct 2013 11:45:42 +1000 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,7217"; a="115727233" Received: from wsmsg3705.srv.dir.telstra.com ([172.49.40.203]) by ipcani.tcif.telstra.com.au with ESMTP; 04 Oct 2013 11:45:41 +1000 Received: from WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com ([172.49.40.159]) by WSMSG3705.srv.dir.telstra.com ([172.49.40.203]) with mapi; Fri, 4 Oct 2013 11:45:41 +1000 From: "Manger, James H" To: Mark Nottingham , Larry Masinter Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 11:43:59 +1000 Thread-Topic: [Json] What is a JSON-text? [REVISITED] Thread-Index: Ac7AjCuEJ4guRzT0SM6oklMy2YqffAAE+TCg Message-ID: <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E11531983AE1@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com> References: <524DAEBF.1020509@drees.name> <524DC3D5.4010806@drees.name> <8426C572-0C47-4905-9BB9-8044087EC6CA@mnot.net> In-Reply-To: <8426C572-0C47-4905-9BB9-8044087EC6CA@mnot.net> Accept-Language: en-US, en-AU Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US, en-AU Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Nico Williams , "stefan@drees.name" , JSON WG , Tim Bray , "Matt Miller \(mamille2\)" Subject: Re: [Json] What is a JSON-text? [REVISITED] X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2013 01:46:08 -0000 PiBXaGF0IExhcnJ5IHNhaWQuDQoNCkkgY2VydGFpbmx5IGFncmVlIHdpdGggdGhpcyBwYXJ0IG9m IHdoYXQgTGFycnkgc2FpZDoNCj4+IGl0IGZpdHMgd2l0aGluIHRoZSBjb252ZW50aW9uIG9mIElu dGVybmV0IE1lZGlhIFR5cGVzIHRvDQo+PiBhY2NlcHQgZXh0ZW5zaW9ucyB0aGF0IGFyZSBsZXhp Y2FsbHkgZGlzdGluZ3Vpc2hhYmxlLg0KDQo+IFRoZSBSRkMgaXMgdmVyeSBjbGVhcmx5IGRlZmlu ZWQgdG8gbm90IGFsbG93IHRoaXMuIFRoZSByZWFzb25zIGZvcg0KPiBhbGxvd2luZyBvdGhlciB0 b3AtbGV2ZWwgdmFsdWVzIG1ha2UgdG90YWwgc2Vuc2UsIGJ1dCB0aGV5J3JlIG5vdCBKU09OLg0K PiBPbmUgbGFuZ3VhZ2UgdGhhdCB1c2VzIEpTT04gYWxsb3dzIG1vcmUsIGJ1dCB0aGF0J3Mgbm90 IEpTT04sIGVsc2UNCj4gQ3JvY2sgd291bGQgaGF2ZSB3cml0dGVuIHNvbWV0aGluZyBkaWZmZXJl bnQgZG93bi4NCg0KSSB0aG91Z2h0IENyb2NrIGRpZCB3cml0ZSBzb21ldGhpbmcgZGlmZmVyZW50 IGRvd24gLS0gYXQgdGhlIG5leHQgb3Bwb3J0dW5pdHkgd2hpY2ggd2FzIHdoZW4gc3BlY2lmeWlu ZyBKU09OIGluIEVDTUFTY3JpcHQgNS4xLg0KDQo+IEFsbG93aW5nIG1vcmUgdG9wLWxldmVsIHZh bHVlcyBpbiB0ZXh0L2pzb24gZG9lcyAqbm90KiBoZWxwIGludGVyb3A7IGl0DQo+IGh1cnRzIGl0 Lg0KPiANCj4gT1RPSCBkb2luZyBpdCBpbiBhbm90aGVyLCBzZXBhcmF0ZSBtZWRpYSB0eXBlIChh bG9uZyB3aXRoIGFsbCBvZiB0aGUNCj4gb3RoZXIgdGhpbmdzIHdlIHdhbnQgdG8gZml4IHVwKSBp cyBwZXJmZWN0bHkgd29ya2FibGU7IGl0IGltcHJvdmVzDQo+IGludGVyb3AgZm9yIHRob3NlIHdo byBjaG9vc2UgdG8gdXNlIGl0Lg0KPiANCj4gUmVnYXJkcywNCj4gDQo+IFAuUy4gV2hhdCB3ZSBu ZWVkIHRvIHJlYWxpc2UgaGVyZSBpcyB0aGF0IGp1c3QgYmVjYXVzZSB3ZSBoYXZlIHRoZSBwZW4N Cj4gZm9yIGJpcywgZG9lc24ndCBtZWFuIHdlIGNhbiBjaGFuZ2UgdGhlIHJlYWxpdHkgb2YgZGVw bG95ZWQNCj4gaW1wbGVtZW50YXRpb25zLCBleGNlcHQgd2l0aCAqdmVyeSogZ2VudGxlIG51ZGdl cyBvdmVyIGxvbmcgcGVyaW9kcyBvZg0KPiB0aW1lLiBPciwgcHV0IGFub3RoZXIgd2F5OiA8aHR0 cDovL3d3dy55b3V0dWJlLmNvbS93YXRjaD92PTQwOVBqdHE3anpZPg0KDQpJIHRob3VnaHQgdGhp cyB3b3VsZCBiZSBhIGdlbnRsZSBudWRnZSBvdmVyIGEgbG9uZyBwZXJpb2QuDQoNCi0tDQpKYW1l cyBNYW5nZXINCg0KDQo+IE9uIDA0LzEwLzIwMTMsIGF0IDc6MDkgQU0sIExhcnJ5IE1hc2ludGVy IDxtYXNpbnRlckBhZG9iZS5jb20+IHdyb3RlOg0KPiANCj4gPiBJIHRoaW5rIHlvdSBtaWdodCBt YWtlIG1vcmUgaGVhZHdheSBpZiB5b3UgdGhpbmsgYWJvdXQgdGhlIHByaW1hcnkNCj4gcm9sZSBv ZiA0NjI3IGFuZCA0NjI3YmlzDQo+ID4gYXMgcmVnaXN0ZXJpbmcgSW50ZXJuZXQgTWVkaWEgVHlw ZXMuICBDb25zaWRlciwgZm9yIGV4YW1wbGUsIGhhdmluZw0KPiB0d28gbWVkaWEgdHlwZXMNCj4g Pg0KPiA+IHRleHQvanNvbiBhbmQgdGV4dC9qc29uKw0KPiA+DQo+ID4gdGhlIGZpcnN0IG9mIHdo aWNoIGlzIDQ2MjcgY29tcGF0aWJsZSwgYW5kIHRoZSBzZWNvbmQgKHRleHQvanNvbispDQo+IGFs bG93aW5nICJub24tY29udGFpbmVyIg0KPiA+IHRvcCBsZXZlbC4NCj4gPg0KPiA+IEV2ZXJ5dGhp bmcgdGhhdCBpcyB2YWxpZCB0ZXh0L2pzb24gd291bGQgYWxzbyBiZSB2YWxpZCB0ZXh0L2pzb24r DQo+IHdpdGggdGhlIHNhbWUgaW50ZXJwcmV0YXRpb24uDQo+ID4NCj4gPiBPciwgeW91IGNvdWxk IGtlZXAgdGhlIHNhbWUgaW50ZXJuZXQgbWVkaWEgdHlwZSBhbmQganVzdCBkZWNsYXJlIGl0DQo+ IGFuIGV4dGVuc2lvbiwNCj4gPiBsaWtlIGltYWdlL2dpZiBjaGFuZ2VkIGZvciBHSUY4OWEuIE9y IFBvc3RzY3JpcHQgY2hhbmdlZCBhbmQgc3RpbGwNCj4ga2VwdA0KPiA+IGFwcGxpY2F0aW9uL3Bv c3RzY3JpcHQuIFllcywgaXQncyBhIGNoYW5nZSwgbm8gaXQgZml0cyB3aXRoaW4gdGhlDQo+IGNv bnZlbnRpb24gb2YgSW50ZXJuZXQNCj4gPiBNZWRpYSBUeXBlcyB0byBhY2NlcHQgZXh0ZW5zaW9u cyB0aGF0IGFyZSBsZXhpY2FsbHkgZGlzdGluZ3Vpc2hhYmxlLg0KPiA+DQo= From derhoermi@gmx.net Fri Oct 4 07:39:20 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8A4021F9A31 for ; Fri, 4 Oct 2013 07:39:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.319 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.319 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.280, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_38=0.6, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id i4TwQkDDbVGa for ; Fri, 4 Oct 2013 07:39:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.21]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A688421F9E5B for ; Fri, 4 Oct 2013 07:33:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from netb.Speedport_W_700V ([91.35.57.193]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx103) with ESMTPA (Nemesis) id 0Lt1yI-1VpadB3ZUo-012USt for ; Fri, 04 Oct 2013 16:33:25 +0200 From: Bjoern Hoehrmann To: "Matt Miller (mamille2)" Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2013 16:33:21 +0200 Message-ID: <866t495q4g8dv3ajpu35ic3vqig8rt411o@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 3.3/32.846 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:ZUahUbUQjD96KZBRZGS1U4yjaK/IdTXHJR5TkjUPZG3Gu26koEI 8z+xNskUhMxxl+bFVTX2nJSacHCppigpVJXXMBkRwBZN2zgKaODBFNP/oPDeJSMLLOIQPa4 +QglISdmSPMoRMF5X5PsZrWReySwh9ye2aZhZ3AnhmyynqHT9+NMx0OpCRON9sQBYJ5gLUk ErWf9AOm/2WxTyHTARjpg== Cc: JSON WG Subject: Re: [Json] What is a JSON-text? [REVISITED] X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2013 14:39:21 -0000 * Matt Miller (mamille2) wrote: >What do others think about changing JSON-text to allow >any JSON value versus just objects or arrays? As far as I am concerned, the Working Group is supposed to standardise JSON and right now we have a chaotic mix of implementations and usages where a parser might default to "lax" parsing permitting `null` at the top-level and a "strict RFC 4627" mode disallowing that, others might default to the strict mode and offer a lax one, others might offer only one mode; there are probably even cases where `json_encode` is con- servative in what it sends, while the corresponding `json_decode` func- tion is liberal in what it accepts, with the unfortunate property that json_encode(json_decode(...)) might fail, even though nobody would suspect that reading the code. In some cases the "lax" parser mode might also support other features not normally allowed, say trailing commas, comments, or the empty string as JSON text. A consequence might be that turning on the "lax" mode adds security vulnerabilities or other hazards to a system. It seems pretty clear to me that we would be better off now if RFC 4627 had made it clear that all values can be used at the top level. I assume some people see JSON primarily in the sense of "JSON file" or "complete message of a JSON-based protocol" and dislike scalar values at the top level because you would not encounter them in such settings. In practise, JSON is frequently used in many other settings, to encode values for other protocol elements or APIs for instance. In web browser settings for instance people might put JSON-serialised data into cookies or the text-only "local storage", in `application/x-www-form-urlencoded` parameters, or communication across windows using `.postMessage` and its ilk, or as message in low-overhead protocols like the WebSocket. With such usage it is fairly common that values might be either an array of numbers, or just the value null, or an object or null, just as it may be a string or null. Sometimes it's either an object, or a error string. So, if one were to design a JSON parsing and serialisation API, it seems clear that one would allow serialisation of scalar values and would make the parser accept whatever the serialiser generates; especially this var json_text = "..."; var obj = json_decode(json_text); assert( obj.fragment eq json_decode(json_encode(obj.fragment)) ); should succeed without failure if `json_text` is properly formed JSON. If that is not the case, users of the parsing and serialisation API are likely to have plenty of rarely surfacing hazards in their code. As a simple example, consider var json_text = "..."; var obj = json_decode(json_text); ... var response = send_network_request(..., json_encode(obj.fragment)); if (!response.is_success) { ... } If `json_encode` serialises `obj.fragment` as requested, even when it is `null`, then send_network_request() would be passed a normal string just like it would in all other cases, and assuming the other endpoint in the network connection regards a top level `null` as error, the error would likely be caught alongside other network errors. If instead the `json_encode` method threw an exception, who knows what would happen; if it returned a special value, say an `undef` value, again, who knows how `send_network_request` will react. Now, if the JSON library happily generates scalar values as the top then it becomes the responsibility of the caller to ensure scalar values at the top level are not generated when it's considered "wrong". That is very hard: there seems to be a large grey area where it's not clear if scalar top level values are a bad practise, and if you take the example above, telling whether `obj.fragment` might ever be a scalar can take a lot of effort, especially if the code around json_encode can change, and the `json_encode` caller might not even know because the `json_text` is produced by a third party network service where the documentation does not say conclusively whether it may ever be a scalar; and guarding each and every `json_encode` call with checks for top level scalars is hard aswell, especially considering the costs of the resulting code bloat. And the same goes for stuffing everything into an extra array or object. Worse, even in cases like "JSON in HTTP request body" there appears to be no consensus that sending top level scalar values is bad practise; I remind once more of the proposed JSON support in XMLHttpRequest that has no problems generating them, and the lack of complaints against that. The "arguments" against allowing scalar values at the top level so far, well, I have seen no attempt to argue that, all things considered, those in charge of running code that supports JSON-based protocols are best off with top level scalars disallowed, and it seems a rather unlikely proposition to me. So I am very much against allowing people to say strings like `null`, `""`, `1.0` are not JSON on their own. -- Bjrn Hhrmann mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899 Dagebll PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 http://www.websitedev.de/ From paul.hoffman@vpnc.org Fri Oct 4 09:59:07 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D159C21F9B03 for ; Fri, 4 Oct 2013 09:59:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PTg6Vd8saQdy for ; Fri, 4 Oct 2013 09:59:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 694E321F9C87 for ; Fri, 4 Oct 2013 09:59:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.20.30.90] (50-1-98-185.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.1.98.185]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.7/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r94GwkYp024156 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 4 Oct 2013 09:58:47 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: hoffman.proper.com: Host 50-1-98-185.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.1.98.185] claimed to be [10.20.30.90] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) From: Paul Hoffman In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 09:58:46 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: To: JSON WG X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) Subject: Re: [Json] What is a JSON-text? [REVISITED] X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2013 16:59:07 -0000 There seems to be deep disagreement, with sound technical arguments on = both sides. The chairs take this as "don't change the document". --Paul Hoffman= From nico@cryptonector.com Fri Oct 4 11:59:15 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A822721F9A37 for ; Fri, 4 Oct 2013 11:59:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.977 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Zkqf8S4rcQ+z for ; Fri, 4 Oct 2013 11:59:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from homiemail-a86.g.dreamhost.com (caiajhbdccah.dreamhost.com [208.97.132.207]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFACD21F9DB4 for ; Fri, 4 Oct 2013 11:58:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from homiemail-a86.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a86.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9AE436007F for ; Fri, 4 Oct 2013 11:58:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h= mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from :to:cc:content-type; s=cryptonector.com; bh=jO+7F5zEP/KtcLIFDCjL +d1M9zE=; b=ZycsA71lzA0NGPZfax435s+sBPLsYgv8sNZPU9mBay8gSIrq0U0L phKJo6vly6nnS512KTPgLUFj9HvYVYRPk8zTDWKzCQd3KopmjPnimHv3in9yDMFi dCt9y1Z/ihqgYkPRPi+U/g69R6XL/tHndcqkH6K/5hV0s6iwU3zBa9A= Received: from mail-wi0-f182.google.com (mail-wi0-f182.google.com [209.85.212.182]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by homiemail-a86.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 58F4036007B for ; Fri, 4 Oct 2013 11:58:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wi0-f182.google.com with SMTP id ez12so2151699wid.15 for ; Fri, 04 Oct 2013 11:58:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=SyZoVloQuzXOHhTcGANRdCt4XtER8S6QgZ4yej0QqoQ=; b=WQuWIEOzT67xCP/tjESELEjHk5UTsLyu0MEEvXFqwxGK6WT4+4f7VTlB9kUL3nadkQ TBUSLfFUqb/B1eQbdQkJRosseTgtaCdtEnODa0XvvhLNFEiYnd3qEAXeniueHVoxPunm 9C3biqXaN2rLpyk2cYGtdUKCdRJm5LGklOXe9PGHfVQUSOvaPsJy1aQI0J8AV5lKrPlB T8nTbf3odAGQhQymf5z3pHfvtpPihfyMrri5nS+eEo5iJiia+pWtn3kL5j5FKMrq/xAE ISfKK/5vGQw595A3nw4MijNuupYRtHt2YWBWrBFXcrfZMY5Sl6VRYEjlTlK8VmveU3q1 kgHQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.250.6 with SMTP id yy6mr13762794wjc.13.1380913113014; Fri, 04 Oct 2013 11:58:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.165.5 with HTTP; Fri, 4 Oct 2013 11:58:32 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <866t495q4g8dv3ajpu35ic3vqig8rt411o@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de> References: <866t495q4g8dv3ajpu35ic3vqig8rt411o@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de> Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 13:58:32 -0500 Message-ID: From: Nico Williams To: Bjoern Hoehrmann Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c1ba4a912c6104e7eee36c Cc: JSON WG , "Matt Miller \(mamille2\)" Subject: Re: [Json] What is a JSON-text? [REVISITED] X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2013 18:59:19 -0000 --001a11c1ba4a912c6104e7eee36c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Oct 4, 2013 11:39 AM, "Bjoern Hoehrmann" wrote: > [...] Exactly. To add to this, just as we'll have text about interop for numbers, we should have text about top-level value interop. There's no reason to exclude a very commonly implemented aspect of ECMAScript (one that is much simpler to manage than matching ECMAScript's number system). That, is my proposal is to: allow any value type at the top-level in the ABNF, just as the ABNF allows bignums, and then note that many implementations by default (or always) only allow arrays and objects at the top-level. I don't see how this creates an incompatibility given what's already out there. Nico -- --001a11c1ba4a912c6104e7eee36c Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Oct 4, 2013 11:39 AM, "Bjoern Hoehr= mann" <derho= ermi@gmx.net> wrote:
> [...]

Exactly.=C2=A0 To add to this, just as we'll have text a= bout interop for numbers, we should have text about top-level value interop= .=C2=A0 There's no reason to exclude a very commonly implemented aspect= of ECMAScript (one that is much simpler to manage than matching ECMAScript= 's number system).

That, is my proposal is to:

=C2=A0=C2=A0 allow any value type at the top-level in the AB= NF, just as the ABNF allows bignums, and then note that many implementation= s by default (or always) only allow arrays and objects at the top-level.

I don't see how this creates an incompatibility given wh= at's already out there.

Nico
--=C2=A0

--001a11c1ba4a912c6104e7eee36c-- From sayrer@gmail.com Fri Oct 4 18:12:43 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21B3221F9C46 for ; Fri, 4 Oct 2013 18:12:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ksNsWkmvBRpW for ; Fri, 4 Oct 2013 18:12:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qc0-x233.google.com (mail-qc0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84C8721F9D9A for ; Fri, 4 Oct 2013 18:12:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qc0-f179.google.com with SMTP id l4so3356096qcv.10 for ; Fri, 04 Oct 2013 18:12:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=TMNWvX3/XwDGDt3f29GyNiflbHfwcC38/BMaxoOEj0Y=; b=wVq2kyNpadJ2MN2Xjj+ZjVkA99FYL0H/9kMsfu0qhACpynvMutlrryrYi4KJVcpTkQ X0Qb82yamb2Be2TtJeH0c1NJUcaqdgOQRq7aDaWqUtURKsFhw9qFnBWN77BXThYfQ5i0 CO4YOFfDGFQgECplSLaycq8Z+JoRvfQM1AbqGOJZnRDc7KqzKAygPo9u+CmaEdf7B37r lUYx/8RpXppkjOQr45/2txw7fzIXAI4p4CnyJ2uKry55ZiV+AX5yhkgL1qWwsxrIEj6m DFz68acnN78ydfWbReNE2YZEGEISAsNfZvLChYuqiKJL3wE4m49RI/d72B4aYLqHZlPI cPkw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.49.103.161 with SMTP id fx1mr21601996qeb.68.1380935558686; Fri, 04 Oct 2013 18:12:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.140.86.147 with HTTP; Fri, 4 Oct 2013 18:12:38 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 18:12:38 -0700 Message-ID: From: R S To: Paul Hoffman Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b2e466a6eef1204e7f41d36 Cc: JSON WG Subject: Re: [Json] What is a JSON-text? [REVISITED] X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 05 Oct 2013 01:12:43 -0000 --047d7b2e466a6eef1204e7f41d36 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Just to be clear, I think this means: the chairs feel there is no consensus to change conformant top-level values in the new RFC, but there is consensus to reference ES 5.1 for the purposes of pointing out that there are differences. Is that correct? - Rob On Friday, October 4, 2013, Paul Hoffman wrote: > > > There seems to be deep disagreement, with sound technical arguments on > both sides. The chairs take this as "don't change the document". > > --Paul Hoffman > _______________________________________________ > json mailing list > json@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json > --047d7b2e466a6eef1204e7f41d36 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Just to be clear, I think=A0this means:=A0the chairs feel there is no conse= nsus to change conformant=A0top-level values in the new=A0RFC, but there is= consensus to reference ES 5.1 for the purposes of pointing out that there = are=A0differences.

Is that correct?

- Rob=

On Friday, October 4, 2013, Paul Hoffman wrote:
<hat on>

There seems to be deep disagreement, with sound technical arguments on both= sides. The chairs take this as "don't change the document".<= br>
--Paul Hoffman
_______________________________________________
json mailing list
json@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
--047d7b2e466a6eef1204e7f41d36-- From tbray@textuality.com Fri Oct 4 19:01:36 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 894F421F9DB4 for ; Fri, 4 Oct 2013 19:01:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.976 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RPdJXpRiOt6o for ; Fri, 4 Oct 2013 19:01:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vb0-f48.google.com (mail-vb0-f48.google.com [209.85.212.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC5BC21F9D3E for ; Fri, 4 Oct 2013 19:01:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vb0-f48.google.com with SMTP id w16so2567020vbf.21 for ; Fri, 04 Oct 2013 19:01:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=4YwqtG2Xd/vZ1xNt2PHhqC/CcBLyeempn6Y/ZmplY+0=; b=ZQ1kMbNbjaIxSAnJd1bs8guGxVGGO0OTfuiBz5qX+rOJoOVNB0Nz7QsruIvw0OUSOL MDfdZzoUIvvigURWh5/OByDFQbNQFiuw2+Mzx7FuiLm5TrNkDU++3QpeXsbELjAZLsCL YwJAO+oD/ig17Ici3po6UB2EG+xoEXTXL6qYR1GZbMYdGIgukSzOK5ucmxy3r3+SGk4Y MtVUCc4YzF+vD8K2k4VBiFV3q0qUmPTnUGLkhyopaHZ5MRhhZzJcaN0Wu/mDP6VefZFl 67lu5gQ0QJedevmOwYYWhDrw9i7CoeSDcy6VAB3MtvCH7i1pTJgRtQtHYZb6syNQPl8o nZUQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQksvj9c6DO8T+fVc3U4ZwRg86iB81XD9NCIdUPYlQbPHbTqHRL/HldwJIfQ7Hj/5hZSnziH MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.52.161.231 with SMTP id xv7mr12603772vdb.1.1380938490211; Fri, 04 Oct 2013 19:01:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.174.197 with HTTP; Fri, 4 Oct 2013 19:01:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [24.84.235.32] In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 19:01:30 -0700 Message-ID: From: Tim Bray To: R S Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01536fee2a82ad04e7f4cc84 Cc: Paul Hoffman , JSON WG Subject: Re: [Json] What is a JSON-text? [REVISITED] X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 05 Oct 2013 02:01:36 -0000 --089e01536fee2a82ad04e7f4cc84 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Dunno what the chairs think, but that seems sensible to me. On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 6:12 PM, R S wrote: > Just to be clear, I think this means: the chairs feel there is no > consensus to change conformant top-level values in the new RFC, but there > is consensus to reference ES 5.1 for the purposes of pointing out that > there are differences. > > Is that correct? > > - Rob > > > On Friday, October 4, 2013, Paul Hoffman wrote: > >> >> >> There seems to be deep disagreement, with sound technical arguments on >> both sides. The chairs take this as "don't change the document". >> >> --Paul Hoffman >> _______________________________________________ >> json mailing list >> json@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json >> > > _______________________________________________ > json mailing list > json@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json > > --089e01536fee2a82ad04e7f4cc84 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dunno what the chairs think, but that seems sensible to me= .


On= Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 6:12 PM, R S <sayrer@gmail.com> wrote:
Just to be clear, I think=C2=A0this means:= =C2=A0the chairs feel there is no consensus to change conformant=C2=A0top-l= evel values in the new=C2=A0RFC, but there is consensus to reference ES 5.1= for the purposes of pointing out that there are=C2=A0differences.

Is that correct?

- Rob


On Friday, October 4, 2013, Paul Hoffman wr= ote:
<hat on>

There seems to be deep disagreement, with sound technical arguments on both= sides. The chairs take this as "don't change the document".<= br>
--Paul Hoffman
_______________________________________________
json mailing list
json@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json

_______________________________________________
json mailing list
json@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json


--089e01536fee2a82ad04e7f4cc84-- From paul.hoffman@vpnc.org Fri Oct 4 19:16:24 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DFFD21F9B65 for ; Fri, 4 Oct 2013 19:16:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Aw9WGDhum6Uw for ; Fri, 4 Oct 2013 19:16:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FC2921F9DA8 for ; Fri, 4 Oct 2013 19:16:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.20.30.90] (50-1-98-185.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.1.98.185]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.7/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r952FVp7049547 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 4 Oct 2013 19:16:19 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: hoffman.proper.com: Host 50-1-98-185.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.1.98.185] claimed to be [10.20.30.90] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) From: Paul Hoffman In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 19:16:18 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <0292BC20-CC3A-4119-ACF8-D02F8296F71A@vpnc.org> References: To: R S X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) Cc: JSON WG Subject: Re: [Json] What is a JSON-text? [REVISITED] X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 05 Oct 2013 02:16:24 -0000 On Oct 4, 2013, at 6:12 PM, R S wrote: > Just to be clear, I think this means: the chairs feel there is no = consensus to change conformant top-level values in the new RFC, but = there is consensus to reference ES 5.1 for the purposes of pointing out = that there are differences. >=20 > Is that correct? Yes, definitely. This question was just about the technical change to = the definition of JSON-text. --Paul Hoffman= From tbray@textuality.com Sat Oct 5 23:11:04 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F91921F9E43 for ; Sat, 5 Oct 2013 23:11:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.976 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0eyHkOQiDeeq for ; Sat, 5 Oct 2013 23:10:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vc0-f174.google.com (mail-vc0-f174.google.com [209.85.220.174]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1B8C21F9E40 for ; Sat, 5 Oct 2013 23:10:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vc0-f174.google.com with SMTP id gd11so2440340vcb.33 for ; Sat, 05 Oct 2013 23:10:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=QguM0JWQBcnXoY+BtLass6dxE7Dq7oUS45fDJFRvZ3U=; b=aSSmHdXdb3Bn/PoSMuHUebMBqIbrirBzFlQSkjXgW9FRxddr7eiWKGeOeEOJa56Azp 6tq5LvGxwRk7PHda2mHh7z41FWSBHHamUc3gUPKk/LmE7Wnlkg+OYOo33G9ykdyZbaYK RbfTzxWcK5HqzSy0+6kTabWiKw9QY7Y0N7fXnjn/WGTsEx6VXhfMNZVD+l2IBwyWmL8N u6u7TGlZkARxcVv+sUsC8UnrEj02QzMUm5bx7v4Qvpqrt2RB4k4oZL3iyPMXlsBuH/Fs CVG7Lm89DLaHjadDfbcBGOqdi2dHay5NKfTgsddEtpJhB8oM7rKTDPWRnZs8iync4Iuz VMnQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn9sjZJq1baI4tS6pSNaiNbRAeE+vMInCDnc1rJVPDTBvL3Hmn2l7lbmGJckVHXTpElPa3V MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.52.103.35 with SMTP id ft3mr17296632vdb.5.1381039852086; Sat, 05 Oct 2013 23:10:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.174.197 with HTTP; Sat, 5 Oct 2013 23:10:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [24.84.235.32] Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2013 23:10:52 -0700 Message-ID: From: Tim Bray To: "json@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8ff24d9bcdff6e04e80c65ae Subject: [Json] Security considerations X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 06 Oct 2013 06:11:04 -0000 --e89a8ff24d9bcdff6e04e80c65ae Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable It dawns on me that the #1 security consideration every web programmer learns, when using JSON, is =E2=80=9CYou could parse it with eval() but DON= =E2=80=99T DO THAT=E2=80=9D. So should we include that in the -bis Security Consideration= s section? --e89a8ff24d9bcdff6e04e80c65ae Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
It dawns on me that the #1 security consideration every we= b programmer learns, when using JSON, is =E2=80=9CYou could parse it with e= val() but DON=E2=80=99T DO THAT=E2=80=9D. So should we include that in the = -bis Security Considerations section?
--e89a8ff24d9bcdff6e04e80c65ae-- From cabo@tzi.org Sun Oct 6 01:12:40 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C725321F9E96 for ; Sun, 6 Oct 2013 01:12:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.226 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.226 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.023, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Hw4ztsScauUE for ; Sun, 6 Oct 2013 01:12:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E61721F9E6C for ; Sun, 6 Oct 2013 01:12:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r968CM26022802; Sun, 6 Oct 2013 10:12:22 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.217.105] (p54892064.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.137.32.100]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 34E2DD0A; Sun, 6 Oct 2013 10:12:22 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2013 10:12:21 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <7C4636E2-2819-4FD9-819F-A3594DADA711@tzi.org> References: To: Tim Bray X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) Cc: "json@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Json] Security considerations X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 06 Oct 2013 08:12:40 -0000 On Oct 6, 2013, at 08:10, Tim Bray wrote: > It dawns on me that the #1 security consideration every web programmer = learns, when using JSON, is =93You could parse it with eval() but DON=92T = DO THAT=94. So should we include that in the -bis Security = Considerations section? Yes! Phrased this way, that would be a security consideration specific to = JavaScript. It may be worthwhile pointing out that there have been = attack vectors*) in other environments as well that have tried some = simple, incompletely checked syntactical conversion from JSON into their = own (unsafe) literal notation and loaded/executed that. Gr=FC=DFe, Carsten *) say, CVE-2013-0269, CVE-2013-0333 From johnl@iecc.com Sun Oct 6 09:53:40 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EC7321F9E6C for ; Sun, 6 Oct 2013 09:53:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.72 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.72 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.580, BAYES_20=-0.74, J_CHICKENPOX_44=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CdAlbX8wcx3n for ; Sun, 6 Oct 2013 09:53:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97DEC21F9E4F for ; Sun, 6 Oct 2013 09:53:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 97780 invoked from network); 6 Oct 2013 16:53:33 -0000 Received: from leila.iecc.com (64.57.183.34) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 6 Oct 2013 16:53:33 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=5251958d.xn--3zv.k1309; i=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=84UTLd17eB1XOdPSIbNNEfl4ZCmR2SBQIeNeH2b8kVY=; b=ifLE+JOg0JI0402dhD7eU65ll+xiRp93ld+FG2BTreU6V+/va+COHeziR7AoD+6likUZXTEUYU4wUQEOYKyD5VtqNJttdXASeFTMXN/2cVEdyRQJHUBGCMvSxIPlXwr5FGG9k5zqn0/FskdqXGcnVFN6uauRfVwXoCZH5CbHTy1NCzoWDyWeN48tBJhogGEyXatBG4BKo5QxQzj0o+nWY+twtBBlIAA65lURLsOK7kq4T3pTETdtGjMtsuAdaCji DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=5251958d.xn--3zv.k1309; olt=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=84UTLd17eB1XOdPSIbNNEfl4ZCmR2SBQIeNeH2b8kVY=; b=iyc7y7OR5RCWeTHnJfvrWyny6f7Hkm1iDo7HO3qWpRoxEaYJmzhh3GJmRsX7WFzT3TQXsDLG4tucLsn0xQTU1FuAj2Dve828fyyg7UVovPAZYcOsLIUCyZLTKZp6GLmmTuEtjVbx7R1NwfzbG5aVbOi+4dEZ3aAzlIwVB8aii6OrCBufiJP2CbYL3YLfHsB9tAgKlSlN9XXYQ257DEiimcnqTiYh+LjJuRM/b+4tsLdV9F+8pmJAsooEbHWNba1/ Date: 6 Oct 2013 16:53:10 -0000 Message-ID: <20131006165310.3006.qmail@joyce.lan> From: "John Levine" To: json@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <7C4636E2-2819-4FD9-819F-A3594DADA711@tzi.org> Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit Cc: cabo@tzi.org Subject: Re: [Json] Security considerations X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 06 Oct 2013 16:53:40 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >> It dawns on me that the #1 security consideration every web programmer >learns, when using JSON, is You could parse it with eval() but DONT DO >THAT. So should we include that in the -bis Security Considerations >section? I would be more concrete and note that a string that purports to be JSON could in fact be anything, so parsers should treat them with due scepticism. I suppose it wouldn't hurt to spell things out for the low-clue, and note that although it is possible to turn a JSON string into an internal reputation by evaluating it as Java(Ecma, etc.)script, that is exceedingly risky unless the string has been verified to be valid JSON. R's, John -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.21 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAlJRlYsACgkQkEiFRdeC/kUpHgCfTAck4oWuM2dZlm0D2Xrbdvzk AzEAn1wGCFV2dBiqpoOmPmM9VDYpTdGq =hdOH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From mmorley@mpcm.com Sun Oct 6 11:35:05 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD81411E8126 for ; Sun, 6 Oct 2013 11:35:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.376 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.376 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_44=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Jx5OjgWZFRGR for ; Sun, 6 Oct 2013 11:35:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-la0-f42.google.com (mail-la0-f42.google.com [209.85.215.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C62C611E811A for ; Sun, 6 Oct 2013 11:34:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-la0-f42.google.com with SMTP id ep20so4825966lab.15 for ; Sun, 06 Oct 2013 11:34:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=FHJndHYrZi5YOD9g218ugmAmuqBFxhLhX88eM3D1ynU=; b=FU4BYvVcl5hmf1k5VTA9urEIS+sssO9sfT672dt9X/v4GOyQsdo+sv8EIhD34T7yKV 1naNkLZW+br6Wc2Pno1Z1B/DfZu9OCwDD7Us+nA3Ng7CkMUtzCkEy4YAJ2ncPHS6R32C LlZb7AL6iNEA8eo48qFNy+Cm0UjhFj7I3cgvU87WQX8P6sA/wC16cLzrTrTB1ncHLqrK v1qqsTSzWr3IJ1ze2g/BdC87WCrkUzQ48nX201j5H5CTmG3MM0AE+ctzTuEYEfZVvBf6 sNeZqSsf9D4iT9/ynbeWxzFPfWddE+sI6iK88v6YZ9xABji//byFGvbxgl1vb9gAec9Z j6eA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlVuCHmLcrDACa2SjmJVi2rKYrisaXKJ3eGb4cL5HHSXzTepSIQ9FqpRQoazFMGwicfTCBT MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.6.169 with SMTP id c9mr2939977laa.28.1381084496199; Sun, 06 Oct 2013 11:34:56 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mmorley@mpcm.com Received: by 10.114.160.198 with HTTP; Sun, 6 Oct 2013 11:34:56 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20131006165310.3006.qmail@joyce.lan> References: <7C4636E2-2819-4FD9-819F-A3594DADA711@tzi.org> <20131006165310.3006.qmail@joyce.lan> Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2013 14:34:56 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: umV_w9HYlnH5vzkpoH45TtlHX9A Message-ID: From: Matthew Morley To: John Levine Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01493c06cd21fb04e816cae4 Cc: Carsten Bormann , "json@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Json] Security considerations X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 06 Oct 2013 18:35:05 -0000 --089e01493c06cd21fb04e816cae4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 12:53 PM, John Levine wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > >> It dawns on me that the #1 security consideration every web programmer > >learns, when using JSON, is =93You could parse it with eval() but DON=92= T DO > >THAT=94. So should we include that in the -bis Security Considerations > >section? > > I would be more concrete and note that a string that purports > to be JSON could in fact be anything, so parsers should treat > them with due scepticism. > +1. > > I suppose it wouldn't hurt to spell things out for the low-clue, > and note that although it is possible to turn a JSON string into > an internal reputation by evaluating it as Java(Ecma, etc.)script, > that is exceedingly risky unless the string has been verified to > be valid JSON. > > R's, > John > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v2.0.21 (FreeBSD) > > iEYEARECAAYFAlJRlYsACgkQkEiFRdeC/kUpHgCfTAck4oWuM2dZlm0D2Xrbdvzk > AzEAn1wGCFV2dBiqpoOmPmM9VDYpTdGq > =3DhdOH > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > _______________________________________________ > json mailing list > json@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json > > --=20 Matthew P. C. Morley --089e01493c06cd21fb04e816cae4 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 12:53 PM, John Levine <johnl@taugh.c= om> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

>> It dawns on me that the #1 security consideration every web progra= mmer
>learns, when using JSON, is =93You could parse it with eval() but DON= =92T DO
>THAT=94. So should we include that in the -bis Security Considerations<= br> >section?

I would be more concrete and note that a string that purports
to be JSON could in fact be anything, so parsers should treat
them with due scepticism.

+1.
=A0

I suppose it wouldn't hurt to spell things out for the low-clue,
and note that although it is possible to turn a JSON string into
an internal reputation by evaluating it as Java(Ecma, etc.)script,
that is exceedingly risky unless the string has been verified to
be valid JSON.

R's,
John
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.21 (FreeBSD)

iEYEARECAAYFAlJRlYsACgkQkEiFRdeC/kUpHgCfTAck4oWuM2dZlm0D2Xrbdvzk
AzEAn1wGCFV2dBiqpoOmPmM9VDYpTdGq
=3DhdOH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
json mailing list
json@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json




--
Matthew = P. C. Morley
--089e01493c06cd21fb04e816cae4-- From sayrer@gmail.com Sun Oct 6 15:25:38 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D37E721E80DD for ; Sun, 6 Oct 2013 15:25:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id v-TPS+QcS+KF for ; Sun, 6 Oct 2013 15:25:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qa0-x22f.google.com (mail-qa0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c00::22f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3ACC121E80D8 for ; Sun, 6 Oct 2013 15:25:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qa0-f47.google.com with SMTP id k4so2503017qaq.20 for ; Sun, 06 Oct 2013 15:25:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=VA2uFzQG8is1Xwvg/BXE3K5eWtYcRFT+/ZHrq/qFLqY=; b=hd5yG6FNElrWiOWO/oKnSPXj4w+LqDnj1Bixj6D7ovcA9/qVcLNgD3+p6zWuz+Uhsu 6dgCoh+lPccbt9Z9qJXcFrN4ik0OgdiC/S6j++Rm1lrqZO+1rb0H2FNyqoEHf4orcOaE CclLe0X+zaL20Jjbz3H2eo7VsHGXxCyJW2jB6k9Qq07yMtdRs+SdUk1UHg7y8n/NOKVX 9yXka6yT+qZ/YMn4LumS8F7xEhtTwABm7n0t6lOFOxmgcjX5rfFwrmWEq/2rGr6wHLsV pwAWet7ouJFVF5TQE8sUj2h9tpS16rpZmDYYrqjHtmgYdxabIQuS7JgxmbFd+YIwMZgp eZbQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.49.71.239 with SMTP id y15mr32376069qeu.14.1381098337657; Sun, 06 Oct 2013 15:25:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.140.86.147 with HTTP; Sun, 6 Oct 2013 15:25:37 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <7C4636E2-2819-4FD9-819F-A3594DADA711@tzi.org> References: <7C4636E2-2819-4FD9-819F-A3594DADA711@tzi.org> Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2013 15:25:37 -0700 Message-ID: From: R S To: Carsten Bormann Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b5d237cd0ea0004e81a0383 Cc: Tim Bray , "json@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Json] Security considerations X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 06 Oct 2013 22:25:39 -0000 --047d7b5d237cd0ea0004e81a0383 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 1:12 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote: > On Oct 6, 2013, at 08:10, Tim Bray wrote: > > > It dawns on me that the #1 security consideration every web programmer > learns, when using JSON, is =93You could parse it with eval() but DON=92T= DO > THAT=94. So should we include that in the -bis Security Considerations > section? > > Yes! > > Phrased this way, that would be a security consideration specific to > JavaScript. It may be worthwhile pointing out that there have been attac= k > vectors*) in other environments as well that have tried some simple, > incompletely checked syntactical conversion from JSON into their own > (unsafe) literal notation and loaded/executed that. We already have a reference to ECMAScript, and it is a pretty common case, so it might be worth saying "eval() in ECMAScript and similar functions in other languages..." or something like that. I believe JSON will eval in Python as well, for example. - Rob > > Gr=FC=DFe, Carsten > > *) say, CVE-2013-0269, CVE-2013-0333 > > _______________________________________________ > json mailing list > json@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json > --047d7b5d237cd0ea0004e81a0383 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 1:12 AM, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org= > wrote:
On Oct 6, 2013, at 08:10, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> wrote:

> It dawns on me that the #1 security consideration every web programmer= learns, when using JSON, is =93You could parse it with eval() but DON=92T = DO THAT=94. So should we include that in the -bis Security Considerations s= ection?

Yes!

Phrased this way, that would be a security consideration specific to JavaSc= ript. =A0It may be worthwhile pointing out that there have been attack vect= ors*) in other environments as well that have tried some simple, incomplete= ly checked syntactical conversion from JSON into their own (unsafe) literal= notation and loaded/executed that.

We already have a reference to ECMAScript, and it is a = pretty common case, so it might be worth saying "eval() in ECMAScript = and similar functions in other languages..." or something like that. I= believe JSON will eval in Python as well, for example.

- Rob

=A0

Gr=FC=DFe, Carsten

*) say, CVE-2013-0269, CVE-2013-0333

_______________________________________________
json mailing list
json@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json

--047d7b5d237cd0ea0004e81a0383-- From cowan@ccil.org Sun Oct 6 19:01:35 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB29421E8124 for ; Sun, 6 Oct 2013 19:01:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3YzXEt2+Vz9a for ; Sun, 6 Oct 2013 19:01:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from earth.ccil.org (earth.ccil.org [192.190.237.11]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C376B21E8123 for ; Sun, 6 Oct 2013 19:01:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cowan by earth.ccil.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1VSzq0-00077J-Fd; Sun, 06 Oct 2013 21:42:20 -0400 Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2013 21:42:20 -0400 From: John Cowan To: R S Message-ID: <20131007014220.GR7224@mercury.ccil.org> References: <7C4636E2-2819-4FD9-819F-A3594DADA711@tzi.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: John Cowan Cc: Carsten Bormann , Tim Bray , "json@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Json] Security considerations X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2013 02:01:36 -0000 R S scripsit: > We already have a reference to ECMAScript, and it is a pretty common > case, so it might be worth saying "eval() in ECMAScript and similar > functions in other languages..." or something like that. I believe > JSON will eval in Python as well, for example. If you arrange for "true", "false", and "null" to be defined as global variables whose values are True, False, and None, then yes. Note that you can validate JSON with a simple regular expression to make it reasonably, though not 100%, safe to eval it in JavaScript. -- The man that wanders far cowan@ccil.org from the walking tree http://www.ccil.org/~cowan --first line of a non-existent poem by: John Cowan From nico@cryptonector.com Sun Oct 6 19:03:58 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC4FF21E8124 for ; Sun, 6 Oct 2013 19:03:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.95 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.95 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.027, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1jMiAo9vG380 for ; Sun, 6 Oct 2013 19:03:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from homiemail-a84.g.dreamhost.com (caiajhbdcbef.dreamhost.com [208.97.132.145]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D84C21E811F for ; Sun, 6 Oct 2013 19:03:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from homiemail-a84.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a84.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E899C1DE060 for ; Sun, 6 Oct 2013 19:03:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h= mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from :to:cc:content-type; s=cryptonector.com; bh=GGi96vz65iSkk+ddoIKV x5W8hII=; b=wkxOuUfzg2010c+1Z9hGdTLWyJPjP+HUvFHJtb7k5ZPNQsVjKIar YjD07kIM5Q5CtkNk7ooAf+0Y4/+5f+TsLK/vd70qJ7dzF2iBsxOivzCGVU176PEj tnE/mH8TmViIQfKMZu7R+Q73+m+shxf6GO5TtAR+Bi+R2J1vOfKCgOw= Received: from mail-we0-f176.google.com (mail-we0-f176.google.com [74.125.82.176]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by homiemail-a84.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 904541DE059 for ; Sun, 6 Oct 2013 19:03:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-we0-f176.google.com with SMTP id w62so4388318wes.7 for ; Sun, 06 Oct 2013 19:03:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=/e8TJq6ZUtksY8xuZjGu78iBEazp8Fry3tpqBvxUQ+I=; b=UIE+zlbmPPHKmslehc1YH8yFRzAfTonsCdL7G5UvzsZjkW6aqWLIlicna4OvRWJj9F NjQfYE61+VIxB3bf3bJbp5Su9xSMtQANjbaRRHRdVxns0pAJWzVZoQkdop2PgXR1UlTx JaNr5SrnBEBLARlxLgTIxV7qHRt8pg05R5vMH4OQN+H1Yjae7VJZhs5hXI61faQ9G9aD BAtlq8X762CYaae1NdJmrHjm0SJi1u+7V1RkbScEBV2ErmcQlNWrq4TJtEfIlrk2eG8M ls3nkHijzq9zqy7or/Vz9QNS5bjfKzqyZi9WtPBRwCccm18lNrghAeXWxF+u7tIZijTo KQcQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.198.79 with SMTP id ja15mr16993022wic.36.1381111427841; Sun, 06 Oct 2013 19:03:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.165.5 with HTTP; Sun, 6 Oct 2013 19:03:47 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20131007014220.GR7224@mercury.ccil.org> References: <7C4636E2-2819-4FD9-819F-A3594DADA711@tzi.org> <20131007014220.GR7224@mercury.ccil.org> Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2013 21:03:47 -0500 Message-ID: From: Nico Williams To: John Cowan Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: Carsten Bormann , "json@ietf.org" , Tim Bray , R S Subject: Re: [Json] Security considerations X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2013 02:03:58 -0000 On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 8:42 PM, John Cowan wrote: > Note that you can validate JSON with a simple regular expression to make > it reasonably, though not 100%, safe to eval it in JavaScript. I'm disinclined to believe this. Feel free to post the regex and we'll see :) From sayrer@gmail.com Sun Oct 6 19:20:59 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BE9221E8127 for ; Sun, 6 Oct 2013 19:20:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.695 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.695 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-3.294, BAYES_00=-2.599, FB_WORD1_END_DOLLAR=3.294, FB_WORD2_END_DOLLAR=3.294, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id f-7y95RBXFdA for ; Sun, 6 Oct 2013 19:20:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qe0-x22c.google.com (mail-qe0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c02::22c]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33B3D21E8128 for ; Sun, 6 Oct 2013 19:20:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qe0-f44.google.com with SMTP id 6so2137353qeb.31 for ; Sun, 06 Oct 2013 19:20:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=dXKud+n044BwfzqLgPaemYGk6wkFdmCE0xu5QW3hf8M=; b=GfyPKjjxJsYU/rK7fjweojEe0IG5ksQQ32Gk3GiZqcFOdNJd9o4/9VknHiZzH4LatR Z6kryR1Qu4dRGYaugTsMCKM56b0jZp0TeHNAtCkVWxskzjfePuVD2YQvi5WjYaZPUHa5 1QxtQ+8IvPIF4hqhClJbtVYsIHoSQAgv9FgGBniKdb4OFLaENVY8gxaxRYBehM7RS2sm 6PnBdfIVmQf5ULZNIsbViz4bm5L5iDFlPnoe0ekmaXVXLw5gs4VLMOJ+bFNDHiFL4nmF s2R3e45eAHZ26ofQl3tjDPDEvhtc0KQEDzBhOejY9x+vmNZx7HV3NFKh38dVv7bD7mt7 0uHA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.229.75.9 with SMTP id w9mr33394944qcj.0.1381112455620; Sun, 06 Oct 2013 19:20:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.140.86.147 with HTTP; Sun, 6 Oct 2013 19:20:55 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20131007014220.GR7224@mercury.ccil.org> References: <7C4636E2-2819-4FD9-819F-A3594DADA711@tzi.org> <20131007014220.GR7224@mercury.ccil.org> Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2013 19:20:55 -0700 Message-ID: From: R S To: John Cowan Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1133b9604ff08804e81d4d6b Cc: Carsten Bormann , Tim Bray , "json@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Json] Security considerations X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2013 02:20:59 -0000 --001a1133b9604ff08804e81d4d6b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 6:42 PM, John Cowan wrote: > R S scripsit: > > > We already have a reference to ECMAScript, and it is a pretty common > > case, so it might be worth saying "eval() in ECMAScript and similar > > functions in other languages..." or something like that. I believe > > JSON will eval in Python as well, for example. > > If you arrange for "true", "false", and "null" to be defined as global > variables whose values are True, False, and None, then yes. > You can. axel-foley:dev sayrer$ python Python 2.7.2 (default, Oct 11 2012, 20:14:37) [GCC 4.2.1 Compatible Apple Clang 4.0 (tags/Apple/clang-418.0.60)] on darwin Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information. >>> eval("[true, false, null]") Traceback (most recent call last): File "", line 1, in File "", line 1, in NameError: name 'true' is not defined >>> eval("[true, false, null]", {"true": True, "false": False, "null": None}) [True, False, None] - Rob > > Note that you can validate JSON with a simple regular expression to make > it reasonably, though not 100%, safe to eval it in JavaScript. > > -- > The man that wanders far cowan@ccil.org > from the walking tree http://www.ccil.org/~cowan > --first line of a non-existent poem by: John Cowan > --001a1133b9604ff08804e81d4d6b Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 6:42 PM, John Cowan <cowan@mercury.cci= l.org> wrote:
R S scripsit:

> We already have a reference to ECMAScript, and it is a pretty common > case, so it might be worth saying "eval() in ECMAScript and simil= ar
> functions in other languages..." or something like that. I believ= e
> JSON will eval in Python as well, for example.

If you arrange for "true", "false", and "nul= l" to be defined as global
variables whose values are True, False, and None, then yes.

You can.

axel-foley:dev = sayrer$ python
Python 2.7.2 (default, Oct 11 2012, 20:14:37)=A0
[GCC 4.2.1 Compatible Apple Clang 4.0 (tags/Apple/clang-418.0.60)] on = darwin
Type "help", "copyright", "credit= s" or "license" for more information.
>>>= eval("[true, false, null]")
Traceback (most recent call last):
=A0 File "<stdin&= gt;", line 1, in <module>
=A0 File "<string>= ;", line 1, in <module>
NameError: name 'true'= is not defined
>>> eval("[true, false, null]", {"true": = True, "false": False, "null": None})
[True, F= alse, None]

- Rob
=A0

Note that you can validate JSON with a simple regular expression to make it reasonably, though not 100%, safe to eval it in JavaScript.

--
The man that wanders far =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0cowan@ccil.org
from the walking tree =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 <= a href=3D"http://www.ccil.org/~cowan" target=3D"_blank">http://www.ccil.org= /~cowan
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 --first line of a non-existent poem by: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Joh= n Cowan

--001a1133b9604ff08804e81d4d6b-- From paul.hoffman@vpnc.org Sun Oct 6 19:37:02 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA54F21E812E for ; Sun, 6 Oct 2013 19:37:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kTdPc1oMfyYB for ; Sun, 6 Oct 2013 19:37:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56A1721E811F for ; Sun, 6 Oct 2013 19:37:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.20.30.90] (50-1-98-185.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.1.98.185]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.7/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r972b0ms025814 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sun, 6 Oct 2013 19:37:01 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: hoffman.proper.com: Host 50-1-98-185.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.1.98.185] claimed to be [10.20.30.90] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) From: Paul Hoffman In-Reply-To: <20131007014220.GR7224@mercury.ccil.org> Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2013 19:37:00 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <7C4636E2-2819-4FD9-819F-A3594DADA711@tzi.org> <20131007014220.GR7224@mercury.ccil.org> To: John Cowan X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) Cc: json@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Json] Security considerations X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2013 02:37:02 -0000 On Oct 6, 2013, at 6:42 PM, John Cowan wrote: > Note that you can validate JSON with a simple regular expression to = make > it reasonably, though not 100%, safe to eval it in JavaScript. This document will not go there. The IETF rarely (if ever) puts on = Standards Track "here is a bomb that is likely to be defused". It really isn't necessary in this case to add JavaScript-specific code, = much less code that might be unsafe. --Paul Hoffman= From tbray@textuality.com Sun Oct 6 20:18:39 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68C9321E8133 for ; Sun, 6 Oct 2013 20:18:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.976 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CdK8VgycJ6TE for ; Sun, 6 Oct 2013 20:18:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vc0-f174.google.com (mail-vc0-f174.google.com [209.85.220.174]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E35D21E813B for ; Sun, 6 Oct 2013 20:18:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vc0-f174.google.com with SMTP id gd11so2708803vcb.33 for ; Sun, 06 Oct 2013 20:18:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=5uqfsmD2VtyYjxRkSB3GXs5J0+c0XbqPYXRcSqekSM4=; b=hLA5WUu0AIL/+s6b265BCR5ng3CwJeOQquypbYMgLVOYuPh9Zh2VAyLpMX+yGUwA2M TeRpsaq1q6laRG0xe2wYAAahkVV7anWgKSEa9asxWAadYYbU1z+XIuNeaeBhSwwM3+Lf ZLVE5R5wqVjy3pMI1GDg1rBhdNrlEx6kl986t3LhDAddDDWTqM6kKC3XRXLHPMIvqJoN Y++kfdol759Bdnol9kad7ly25ov++BKuEwMKcEBOdpheyBh82XAP3TX44SGf+yeiPgbQ O6xuEw7mHASx35drKRYd/i7ZsZBuhbbynRhx0BaJQZe2kpNK/M87cmEVP0V38+4Q57sV kLMA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnV14eFrQ8GWECFeuYaVp5FX3ZnWwGGfiSRAndo6O4rHono1E00Mxxywl4nJKfDSQ81kPbp MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.58.108.74 with SMTP id hi10mr25130802veb.14.1381115913589; Sun, 06 Oct 2013 20:18:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.174.197 with HTTP; Sun, 6 Oct 2013 20:18:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [24.84.235.32] In-Reply-To: References: <7C4636E2-2819-4FD9-819F-A3594DADA711@tzi.org> <20131007014220.GR7224@mercury.ccil.org> Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2013 20:18:33 -0700 Message-ID: From: Tim Bray To: Paul Hoffman Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1130ca2e6c63f304e81e1b8b Cc: John Cowan , "json@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Json] Security considerations X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2013 03:18:39 -0000 --001a1130ca2e6c63f304e81e1b8b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 7:37 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > This document will not go there. The IETF rarely (if ever) puts on > Standards Track "here is a bomb that is likely to be defused". > You mean will not cover might-make-you-safe regex, or will not warn of the dangers of eval()? > > It really isn't necessary in this case to add JavaScript-specific code, > much less code that might be unsafe. > > --Paul Hoffman > _______________________________________________ > json mailing list > json@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json > --001a1130ca2e6c63f304e81e1b8b Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 7:37= PM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote:
This document will not go there. The IETF ra= rely (if ever) puts on Standards Track "here is a bomb that is likely = to be defused".

You mean will not cover might-make-you-saf= e regex, or will not warn of the dangers of eval()?

=C2= =A0

It really isn't necessary in this case to add JavaScript-specific code,= much less code that might be unsafe.

--Paul Hoffman
_____________________= __________________________
json mailing list
json@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json

--001a1130ca2e6c63f304e81e1b8b-- From paul.hoffman@vpnc.org Sun Oct 6 20:19:30 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7103F21E8133 for ; Sun, 6 Oct 2013 20:19:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GbIGLx-Ji4ey for ; Sun, 6 Oct 2013 20:19:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D283F21E813D for ; Sun, 6 Oct 2013 20:19:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.20.30.90] (50-1-98-185.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.1.98.185]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.7/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r973JQ2P026615 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sun, 6 Oct 2013 20:19:27 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: hoffman.proper.com: Host 50-1-98-185.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.1.98.185] claimed to be [10.20.30.90] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) From: Paul Hoffman In-Reply-To: Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2013 20:19:26 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <8DD26019-C037-4E66-ADD8-AE01832E5EE1@vpnc.org> References: <7C4636E2-2819-4FD9-819F-A3594DADA711@tzi.org> <20131007014220.GR7224@mercury.ccil.org> To: Tim Bray X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) Cc: John Cowan , "json@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Json] Security considerations X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2013 03:19:30 -0000 On Oct 6, 2013, at 8:18 PM, Tim Bray wrote: > You mean will not cover might-make-you-safe regex, or will not warn of = the dangers of eval()? Correct. --Paul HOffman= From cowan@ccil.org Sun Oct 6 20:23:43 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF18121E813C for ; Sun, 6 Oct 2013 20:23:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FnoJjkYf7aLc for ; Sun, 6 Oct 2013 20:23:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from earth.ccil.org (earth.ccil.org [192.190.237.11]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C593F21E813B for ; Sun, 6 Oct 2013 20:23:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cowan by earth.ccil.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1VT1Pt-0000Ao-6W; Sun, 06 Oct 2013 23:23:29 -0400 Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2013 23:23:29 -0400 From: John Cowan To: Nico Williams Message-ID: <20131007032329.GD27398@mercury.ccil.org> References: <7C4636E2-2819-4FD9-819F-A3594DADA711@tzi.org> <20131007014220.GR7224@mercury.ccil.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: John Cowan Cc: Carsten Bormann , "json@ietf.org" , Tim Bray , R S Subject: Re: [Json] Security considerations X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2013 03:23:44 -0000 Nico Williams scripsit: > I'm disinclined to believe this. Feel free to post the regex and we'll see :) See . -- La mayyitan ma qadirun yatabaqqa sarmadi John Cowan Fa idha yaji' al-shudhdhadh fa-l-maut qad yantahi. cowan@ccil.org --Abdullah al-Hazred, Al-`Azif http://www.ccil.org/~cowan From tbray@textuality.com Sun Oct 6 21:09:07 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A1F121E8145 for ; Sun, 6 Oct 2013 21:09:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.976 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0qgMm9Yaqphw for ; Sun, 6 Oct 2013 21:09:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ve0-f169.google.com (mail-ve0-f169.google.com [209.85.128.169]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D739221E813D for ; Sun, 6 Oct 2013 21:09:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ve0-f169.google.com with SMTP id db12so3624493veb.28 for ; Sun, 06 Oct 2013 21:09:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=aRTPeEcPoPaxk4d9spFHgXznAH1trsZdxxZtMvEoHi0=; b=f6pNR4PL8oa6CglWrWInhA2uUyvIcVgJ+vfaW5X2Pioe988h0F+vizjok5J2eQ1/0M 0yvfCjbmEi3tNTuvkCCtNjntb0dXs50yP9hl3I+S8xkBLsJwPDWaShRQ2YHduEg3IkpV XvvodUphrcTJGpDT4WjLA1U1nP6rDXWLSCGi06/DFQXkTmQKDv6YqmOD7fEzQkhCg6Vk j9GikQS1n71subqv33V63e09zGJAMUA24oe0UaHWYp60QpsOXCOaS7TKvr+1Ug77Edru 9ZGm0CxRoefNspMDErHUd4wek+KFQ6zFzM9X9OeAtAYgGDbISUoicwBSyXhLxIuXPDEO 4vzQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlnIFJsLCyov9noowhaO0b8U19tvRbvDftWD0Z5y0O5td84rthw9cQnSBTZQh9goELMcAUN MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.52.32.37 with SMTP id f5mr20290248vdi.17.1381118940130; Sun, 06 Oct 2013 21:09:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.174.197 with HTTP; Sun, 6 Oct 2013 21:09:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [24.84.235.32] In-Reply-To: <8DD26019-C037-4E66-ADD8-AE01832E5EE1@vpnc.org> References: <7C4636E2-2819-4FD9-819F-A3594DADA711@tzi.org> <20131007014220.GR7224@mercury.ccil.org> <8DD26019-C037-4E66-ADD8-AE01832E5EE1@vpnc.org> Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2013 21:09:00 -0700 Message-ID: From: Tim Bray To: Paul Hoffman Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec51d2552d1c47a04e81ecf6d Cc: John Cowan , "json@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Json] Security considerations X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2013 04:09:07 -0000 --bcaec51d2552d1c47a04e81ecf6d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable What is the argument against including a conventional warning against a plausible-but-dangerous practice? The only one I can think of is =E2=80=9C= everyone already knows that=E2=80=9D which doesn=E2=80=99t seem very strong to me. On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > On Oct 6, 2013, at 8:18 PM, Tim Bray wrote: > > > You mean will not cover might-make-you-safe regex, or will not warn of > the dangers of eval()? > > Correct. > > --Paul HOffman > _______________________________________________ > json mailing list > json@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json > --bcaec51d2552d1c47a04e81ecf6d Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
What is the argument against including a conventional warn= ing against a plausible-but-dangerous practice?=C2=A0 The only one I can th= ink of is =E2=80=9Ceveryone already knows that=E2=80=9D which doesn=E2=80= =99t seem very strong to me.


On Sun,= Oct 6, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote:
On Oct 6, 2013, at 8:18 PM= , Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com= > wrote:

> You mean will not cover might-make-you-safe regex, or will not warn of= the dangers of eval()?

Correct.

--Paul HOffman
_____________________= __________________________
json mailing list
json@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json

--bcaec51d2552d1c47a04e81ecf6d-- From sayrer@gmail.com Sun Oct 6 22:02:17 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9048F21E814E for ; Sun, 6 Oct 2013 22:02:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.187 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.187 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.412, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g35oGslo1FhH for ; Sun, 6 Oct 2013 22:02:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qc0-x22d.google.com (mail-qc0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::22d]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42C6721E8151 for ; Sun, 6 Oct 2013 22:02:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qc0-f173.google.com with SMTP id c3so4439205qcv.4 for ; Sun, 06 Oct 2013 22:02:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=V7B5gDJCvkpww3R2+47Y14nZd2giQFmmDNzRV2GtyU0=; b=u+HahlLP+evLwuBXdfTzsCvumaqkgE3eyNxVse2kgJlofPRMTG6/DMwcg9pEzmSKmi gy8I4mCI2R9Z/CGZ1A+3mrbPUhH+FSOhhiwJz1Y75QsTw0m003qHrcA+34+q28MGdF61 SXqopMsHzdLG7ptJiW+4B4Gl8LgJ1g4yg3BHwELDaHdjwfdhMzvTXEGzgSAZiSkyMLTI vNRZ9Xh2xgtDKH6xWiy+N0XnK6OSgj/fMBn8OYi0pRm69JzIbacEv3wER4/Wqk6NLRSG upT9NRkueht/Sf/oxXQl55qW97e70bGjJExclSxugoOQOpKZbPFfVaY8byqtKBxLCj0t tbuw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.49.30.66 with SMTP id q2mr34001511qeh.38.1381122133729; Sun, 06 Oct 2013 22:02:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.140.86.147 with HTTP; Sun, 6 Oct 2013 22:02:13 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <7C4636E2-2819-4FD9-819F-A3594DADA711@tzi.org> <20131007014220.GR7224@mercury.ccil.org> <8DD26019-C037-4E66-ADD8-AE01832E5EE1@vpnc.org> Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2013 22:02:13 -0700 Message-ID: From: R S To: Tim Bray Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bdc90be2c289b04e81f8e13 Cc: John Cowan , Paul Hoffman , "json@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Json] Security considerations X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2013 05:02:17 -0000 --047d7bdc90be2c289b04e81f8e13 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sunday, October 6, 2013, Tim Bray wrote: > What is the argument against including a conventional warning against a > plausible-but-dangerous practice? The only one I can think of is =93ever= yone > already knows that=94 which doesn=92t seem very strong to me. > It's worse than that. RFC 4627 has text that says a JSON string can be passed to eval() if it passes an inadequate regex. This text should be corrected, not just omitted. - Rob > > On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Paul Hoffman > > wrote: > >> On Oct 6, 2013, at 8:18 PM, Tim Bray > >> wrote: >> >> > You mean will not cover might-make-you-safe regex, or will not warn of >> the dangers of eval()? >> >> Correct. >> >> --Paul HOffman >> _______________________________________________ >> json mailing list >> json@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json >> > > --047d7bdc90be2c289b04e81f8e13 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sunday, October 6, 2013, Tim Bray wrote:
What is the argument against including a con= ventional warning against a plausible-but-dangerous practice?=A0 The only o= ne I can think of is =93everyone already knows that=94 which doesn=92t seem= very strong to me.

It's worse than that.
=
RFC 4627 has text that=A0says a JSON string can be passed to= eval() if it passes an inadequate regex. This text=A0should be corrected, = not just omitted.=A0
=A0
- Rob



On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote:
On Oct 6, 2013, at 8:18 PM, Tim Bray &l= t;tbray@textuality.com> wrote:

> You mean will not cover might-make-you-safe regex, or will not warn of= the dangers of eval()?

Correct.

--Paul HOffman
_______________________________________________
json mailing list
json@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json

--047d7bdc90be2c289b04e81f8e13-- From duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp Mon Oct 7 00:31:33 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4253721E817A for ; Mon, 7 Oct 2013 00:31:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.123 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.123 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.667, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NUGjrfR7Oi31 for ; Mon, 7 Oct 2013 00:31:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scintmta02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (scintmta02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp [133.2.253.34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E37121E8171 for ; Mon, 7 Oct 2013 00:31:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scmse02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp ([133.2.253.231]) by scintmta02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (secret/secret) with SMTP id r977VLV0018902; Mon, 7 Oct 2013 16:31:21 +0900 Received: from (unknown [133.2.206.134]) by scmse02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp with smtp id 6912_bfca_7681cf20_2f22_11e3_9aa0_001e6722eec2; Mon, 07 Oct 2013 16:31:20 +0900 Received: from [IPv6:::1] (unknown [133.2.210.1]) by itmail2.it.aoyama.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7F05BFF7E; Mon, 7 Oct 2013 16:31:20 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <5252633E.70000@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2013 16:31:10 +0900 From: =?UTF-8?B?Ik1hcnRpbiBKLiBEw7xyc3Qi?= Organization: Aoyama Gakuin University User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100722 Eudora/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tim Bray References: <7C4636E2-2819-4FD9-819F-A3594DADA711@tzi.org> <20131007014220.GR7224@mercury.ccil.org> <8DD26019-C037-4E66-ADD8-AE01832E5EE1@vpnc.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: John Cowan , Paul Hoffman , "json@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Json] Security considerations X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2013 07:31:33 -0000 I think it would be good to say something like "There are regular=20 expressions floating around with the claims that they can pre-check a=20 JSON text and make it safe to pass it to eval() and friends, but none of=20 these are actually work." I think it would be a bad idea to say something like "Here is a regular=20 expression which almost works." Regards, Martin. Off-topic: I think that the regular expression engine in Ruby 1.9 (Oniguruma) comes=20 with features that allow the creation of a Regexp object that would do=20 the full job. That's because these regular expressions essentially are=20 powered up to reach the level of context-free languages. Of course, from a viewpoint of formal language theory, they don't=20 deserve to be called regular expressions anymore, but then this applies=20 to virtually all of the "regular expression" implementations in today's=20 languages and libraries. On 2013/10/07 13:09, Tim Bray wrote: > What is the argument against including a conventional warning against a > plausible-but-dangerous practice? The only one I can think of is =E2=80= =9Ceveryone > already knows that=E2=80=9D which doesn=E2=80=99t seem very strong to m= e. > > > On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Paul Hoffman wr= ote: > >> On Oct 6, 2013, at 8:18 PM, Tim Bray wrote: >> >>> You mean will not cover might-make-you-safe regex, or will not warn o= f >> the dangers of eval()? >> >> Correct. >> >> --Paul HOffman >> _______________________________________________ >> json mailing list >> json@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > json mailing list > json@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json From tbray@textuality.com Mon Oct 7 12:06:47 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C678F11E8128 for ; Mon, 7 Oct 2013 12:06:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.976 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id G25Bi+Ek91Ce for ; Mon, 7 Oct 2013 12:06:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ve0-f171.google.com (mail-ve0-f171.google.com [209.85.128.171]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 424D811E8120 for ; Mon, 7 Oct 2013 12:06:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ve0-f171.google.com with SMTP id pa12so4109631veb.30 for ; Mon, 07 Oct 2013 12:06:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=3c6jt8k3Zgo9BkT7lXuZcrII1F/dKZ/JuY3xZitzbKY=; b=WuFTk777Q4cOBVPMR2/M/8JDcgLnnqbFsA18rGnbvqVOUkhGmRRVB0TnYEFfd/QSsb TFjsVRrtr4ediOb3OKudi/bQpzWR4jZ/mC9v4JVpI+DmtFwpKCoSwNXVU8V2lO/E6Wfn JmhikSiBvOd55i38y0jzDU9OyYdpzxDF18ylaOHkqAAFtd5iZamalJm8J22oEdmILO3J /SEfxtQ017ljleQnMwNHFCUlSE6pu22whiijan8O71eAhg9OyDF2e+92oFmgFiJmwc0s WHcVSBaZthHey3O3H03jAyumC7oDGfsiCfGhe5ZIUKwPKj66QUCcT3sX3vPgeZPvkGr8 WOYA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmTbYauxnRpupIR+MYdlPAh6By27WEjAHDjgw2z5GqfhH0IcpTLARoCW/J4tp+OXvNpTwYy MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.220.13.20 with SMTP id z20mr27879828vcz.0.1381172800360; Mon, 07 Oct 2013 12:06:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.174.197 with HTTP; Mon, 7 Oct 2013 12:06:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [96.49.81.176] Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2013 12:06:40 -0700 Message-ID: From: Tim Bray To: "json@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3ec7023a50704e82b5a4d Subject: [Json] Where did we end up on negative zeros? X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2013 19:06:47 -0000 --001a11c3ec7023a50704e82b5a4d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I=E2=80=99m trying to cook up a new draft and I think the trend of WG discu= ssion was pretty clear on most things, but the email threads around warning against -0.0 (or not) got too twisted for me. There is text on this in the -04 draft; my best guess is that the WG *probably* leans to taking it out, on the grounds that people who actually care about this stuff will have been burned enough not to trust transport syntaxes to automatically do the right thing and anyhow it=E2=80=99s horrib= ly language-specific. But I could be wrong. Also, I don=E2=80=99t care; speak= up if you do. --001a11c3ec7023a50704e82b5a4d Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I=E2=80=99m trying to cook up a new draft and I think= the trend of WG discussion was pretty clear on most things, but the email = threads around warning against -0.0 (or not) got too twisted for me.
There is text on this in the -04 draft; my best guess is that the WG *proba= bly* leans to taking it out, on the grounds that people who actually care a= bout this stuff will have been burned enough not to trust transport syntaxe= s to automatically do the right thing and anyhow it=E2=80=99s horribly lang= uage-specific.=C2=A0 But I could be wrong. Also, I don=E2=80=99t care; spea= k up if you do.

--001a11c3ec7023a50704e82b5a4d-- From masinter@adobe.com Tue Oct 8 07:48:37 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 203A821E81C0 for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 07:48:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id H9tMxXjC1xpj for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 07:48:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod6og123.obsmtp.com (exprod6og123.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7B3421E8184 for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 07:47:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from outbound-smtp-2.corp.adobe.com ([193.104.215.16]) by exprod6ob123.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUlQa/e+U1WFyfZ1b+55rNadZqk+e4s8F@postini.com; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 07:47:48 PDT Received: from inner-relay-1.corp.adobe.com (inner-relay-1.sea.adobe.com [153.32.1.51]) by outbound-smtp-2.corp.adobe.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id r98ElOQu012501; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 07:47:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nacas02.corp.adobe.com (nacas02.corp.adobe.com [10.8.189.100]) by inner-relay-1.corp.adobe.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id r98ElN6A007626; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 07:47:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com ([10.8.189.95]) by nacas02.corp.adobe.com ([10.8.189.100]) with mapi; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 07:47:23 -0700 From: Larry Masinter To: JSON WG Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 07:47:22 -0700 Thread-Topic: FYI ECMA, W3C, IETF coordination on JSON Thread-Index: Ac7ENUt38T9HlXXlQ3qrFnIre+ICJw== Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "www-tag@w3.org" Subject: [Json] FYI ECMA, W3C, IETF coordination on JSON X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 14:48:37 -0000 IETF JSON members might want to review http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2013/10/02-minutes.html#item03 a report and discussion of (some members of) TC39 and the W3C TAG on the IE= TF activities around JSON. From tbray@textuality.com Tue Oct 8 08:31:29 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BB4C21E818D for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 08:31:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.749 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.228, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FRT_ADOBE2=2.455, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p+IQrIqJG8Ki for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 08:31:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vb0-f50.google.com (mail-vb0-f50.google.com [209.85.212.50]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E224621E8186 for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 08:31:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vb0-f50.google.com with SMTP id x14so4286434vbb.37 for ; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 08:31:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=3YknJ0l3MM3n5RRB3XkMZpKquU1qx69Pacmr/goLpTU=; b=Mon8wldhqU1B366g7s+8qRWKTCxw/MsydoJZkp3Xc7jP3ckXoh+30BG1wCNRsuQJhO 2ZZjnXcZhyJW+8AnpPLXE7Jw2dZLSoNAVaaTyZVQLVoTErMkbQuSRjFaQCIG33eTN8u9 xmd8zFwljxAiBomXa7JX8qYoREeH7GMMYSM3gab9MQkQJkyFDbJkxfalRips2kMkkhuz xk/D2HxsnXRhmnhXgenC90ZvgOfWRnPjKi5NU5DjTmg1mpOP2ki+IODS9SOumFrN6SrB Wzjlsbe41IWE9rGpIBGNjaurx+PKx4or974l0kbJ+yjlN8tr+v7APxz58mc+h/X3cuFd 4u3g== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmyucGp65vNIfPWRVp224nUUFbdS4f3AM+GaDhEnY11vmmKs2NAyUzFiN+NaMR94ku8jrij MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.52.26.6 with SMTP id h6mr489680vdg.57.1381246279960; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 08:31:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.174.197 with HTTP; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 08:31:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [24.84.235.32] In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 08:31:19 -0700 Message-ID: From: Tim Bray To: Larry Masinter Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf307ca414dd5c1204e83c75c4 Cc: "www-tag@w3.org" , JSON WG Subject: Re: [Json] FYI ECMA, W3C, IETF coordination on JSON X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 15:31:29 -0000 --20cf307ca414dd5c1204e83c75c4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Oh joy, dueling specs. That=E2=80=99s so 1999. On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 7:47 AM, Larry Masinter wrote: > IETF JSON members might want to review > > http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2013/10/02-minutes.html#item03 > > a report and discussion of (some members of) TC39 and the W3C TAG on the > IETF activities around JSON. > > > _______________________________________________ > json mailing list > json@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json > --20cf307ca414dd5c1204e83c75c4 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Oh joy, dueling specs.=C2=A0 That=E2=80=99s so 1999.


On Tue, O= ct 8, 2013 at 7:47 AM, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com> = wrote:
IETF JSON members might want to review

http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2013/10/02-minutes.html#item03<= br>
a report and discussion of (some members of) TC39 and the W3C TAG on the IE= TF activities around JSON.


_______________________________________________
json mailing list
json@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json

--20cf307ca414dd5c1204e83c75c4-- From pfpschneider@gmail.com Tue Oct 8 08:51:25 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C52AA21F96DA for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 08:51:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.372 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.372 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.228, BAYES_00=-2.599, FRT_ADOBE2=2.455] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jUF7DFV6YGSl for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 08:51:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qe0-x230.google.com (mail-qe0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c02::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BFB711E80D9 for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 08:51:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qe0-f48.google.com with SMTP id d4so177973qej.7 for ; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 08:51:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=IYQgFPJMS2pieiH+ErN+o/myKBfXuDho9+Xt9R1PN9s=; b=LQ5mG0H9zIXT6qjom3+vpNImTF2FZUZQXSZnL3b11Isv2os2yc3zrEru+zRv5aAlv5 rWo3AV6fZ/zT+4THIyGQQcfwMCecSyCxTQryvmqX2N45ot46x7tzB/XTqBoa1DgjUQkw 873tG2AfbaLXtQaKU3BNzqCh/1wDlDvaJpdvGFZQGfMPOuVz0Xc4P3sjtd8nMaR67E4I NVWrVLlmuL9jNRS53rxY5796vFGzLUoiRYG8aLYcLBdKAudSpTSiz6SLVK/TpLz5AsVb GMNn8aT/AL879BrFucLDLoHqabT89/bERYL9AgDAZBszIDq3N3A5t1ksP9APPDOIodRo Dr1w== X-Received: by 10.224.64.200 with SMTP id f8mr4776016qai.55.1381247472942; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 08:51:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (out-on-245.wireless.telus.com. [207.219.69.245]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id g2sm75229213qaf.12.1969.12.31.16.00.00 (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 08 Oct 2013 08:51:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <525429ED.5000705@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 08:51:09 -0700 From: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130805 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tim Bray References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: JSON WG , "www-tag@w3.org" , Larry Masinter Subject: Re: [Json] FYI ECMA, W3C, IETF coordination on JSON X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 15:51:25 -0000 I was trying to find the TC39 "stable standalone draft" for JSON that is mentioned by YK. Does anyone know where that is? There also doesn't appear to be a pointer to the "proposed JSON standard to be submitted to Ecma" that Doug Crockford presented to the July TC39 meeting. Does anyone know where that is? I also note that there was no pushback at the W3C TAG on "ECMAScript [...] defines parsing and serialization [for JSON]". peter On 10/08/2013 08:31 AM, Tim Bray wrote: > Oh joy, dueling specs. Thats so 1999. > > > On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 7:47 AM, Larry Masinter > wrote: > > IETF JSON members might want to review > > http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2013/10/02-minutes.html#item03 > > a report and discussion of (some members of) TC39 and the W3C TAG on the > IETF activities around JSON. > > > _______________________________________________ > json mailing list > json@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json > > > > > _______________________________________________ > json mailing list > json@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json From allen@wirfs-brock.com Tue Oct 8 09:04:09 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E5A821F8427 for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 09:04:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nBMPtRaUuOVH for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 09:03:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org (mho-03-ewr.mailhop.org [204.13.248.66]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6A5021E8226 for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 09:02:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 069-064-236-244.pdx.net ([69.64.236.244] helo=[192.168.0.14]) by mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1VTZjW-00074F-Aa; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 16:02:02 +0000 X-Mail-Handler: Dyn Standard SMTP by Dyn X-Originating-IP: 69.64.236.244 X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@dyndns.com (see http://www.dyndns.com/services/sendlabs/outbound_abuse.html for abuse reporting information) X-MHO-User: U2FsdGVkX1+rXex2YhhLubWSF/xByEbpim7tg7Rf5lA= Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-20--786010995 From: Allen Wirfs-Brock In-Reply-To: <525429ED.5000705@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 09:01:54 -0700 Message-Id: <04FC3123-33A4-40DA-AD5D-DA543435DE56@wirfs-brock.com> References: <525429ED.5000705@gmail.com> To: Peter F. Patel-Schneider X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085) Cc: Larry Masinter , Tim Bray , "www-tag@w3.org" , JSON WG Subject: Re: [Json] FYI ECMA, W3C, IETF coordination on JSON X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 16:04:10 -0000 --Apple-Mail-20--786010995 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii The draft was approved by a letter ballot of the Ecma General Assembly. = It is now available as Ecma-404: see = http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-404.htm=20 Allen --Apple-Mail-20--786010995 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
The draft was approved by a letter ballot of the Ecma General Assembly.  It is now available as Ecma-404:

see http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-404.htm 

Allen


--Apple-Mail-20--786010995-- From cabo@tzi.org Tue Oct 8 09:14:32 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2AD721E8203 for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 09:14:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.002 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.208, BAYES_00=-2.599, FRT_ADOBE2=2.455, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WlHP2GzuWSt1 for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 09:14:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 489BC21E8221 for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 09:11:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r98GBSkj029067; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 18:11:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.217.105] (p5489368E.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.137.54.142]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 75198A6F; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 18:11:28 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 18:11:27 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: To: Larry Masinter X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) Cc: "www-tag@w3.org" , JSON WG Subject: Re: [Json] FYI ECMA, W3C, IETF coordination on JSON X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 16:14:33 -0000 On Oct 8, 2013, at 16:47, Larry Masinter wrote: > http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2013/10/02-minutes.html#item03 This record demonstrates a significant need for outreach and education. The conversation does not seem to benefit at all from the information = that the IETF JSON WG has been able to assemble. Gr=FC=DFe, Carsten From pfpschneider@gmail.com Tue Oct 8 09:37:45 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5050721E8269 for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 09:37:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.985 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.985 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.614, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mZl-ilMqU3ad for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 09:37:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qa0-x235.google.com (mail-qa0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c00::235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8453921E8221 for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 09:37:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qa0-f53.google.com with SMTP id k4so3949081qaq.5 for ; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 09:37:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=+EWVO7YdcneMT7l1JcZMACG5D7w5mSLSJ8eCPlU1cow=; b=eIhmEP44EQ8PmRHjKWtGXlVq258T0VLuGFxVdcozp9vr9lELQx45sFlgYb5EV5iINu 4DSxzeHVeYdX1LeZE5rMOE+VgCwmePafAD9dD0twgvF1CReIqh1vaa0mqoqFknM4f4oS ECrLjaADiIOhEfvaXcClO2eZqnCULU2IruSnVWqpK8Jo29u0AiirsWAiXSt2XhcKHeeC FMk+SREUw3g/k27wplrisZlFk6P/dn2/AF1iKW7nzYSpZP+vG82jVhnIPQsJyLrfoc42 p4nMDitZO7WWwUgLTq5YGqeqi9XpkpZsax+rtox6fqXhcadHJIbemq75Pgq2RX9oFWm+ jh1Q== X-Received: by 10.224.96.137 with SMTP id h9mr5120497qan.96.1381250263955; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 09:37:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (out-on-245.wireless.telus.com. [207.219.69.245]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id x1sm75674072qai.6.1969.12.31.16.00.00 (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 08 Oct 2013 09:37:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <525434D5.6070409@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 09:37:41 -0700 From: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130805 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Allen Wirfs-Brock References: <525429ED.5000705@gmail.com> <04FC3123-33A4-40DA-AD5D-DA543435DE56@wirfs-brock.com> In-Reply-To: <04FC3123-33A4-40DA-AD5D-DA543435DE56@wirfs-brock.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Larry Masinter , Tim Bray , "www-tag@w3.org" , JSON WG Subject: Re: [Json] FYI ECMA, W3C, IETF coordination on JSON X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 16:37:45 -0000 What is the relationship (supposed to be) between this standard and the JSON MIME type? As far as I can tell they cover precisely the same ground, except for interoperability warnings and admonitions. peter On 10/08/2013 09:01 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote: > The draft was approved by a letter ballot of the Ecma General Assembly. It > is now available as Ecma-404: > > see http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-404.htm > > Allen > > From cowan@ccil.org Tue Oct 8 09:43:04 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE18B21E8253 for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 09:43:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2uswh0dlokYk for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 09:43:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from earth.ccil.org (earth.ccil.org [192.190.237.11]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 004EE21E8237 for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 09:42:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cowan by earth.ccil.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1VTaMV-00073p-Eb; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 12:42:19 -0400 Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 12:42:19 -0400 From: John Cowan To: Allen Wirfs-Brock Message-ID: <20131008164219.GA16081@mercury.ccil.org> References: <525429ED.5000705@gmail.com> <04FC3123-33A4-40DA-AD5D-DA543435DE56@wirfs-brock.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <04FC3123-33A4-40DA-AD5D-DA543435DE56@wirfs-brock.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: John Cowan Cc: Tim Bray , JSON WG , "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" , "www-tag@w3.org" , Larry Masinter Subject: Re: [Json] FYI ECMA, W3C, IETF coordination on JSON X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 16:43:04 -0000 Allen Wirfs-Brock scripsit: > The draft was approved by a letter ballot of the Ecma General Assembly. It is now available as Ecma-404: Almost all of it is derived directly from the RFC, with some editorial cleanup. The Introduction, however, is new. I reproduce it here in case the Editor wishes to mine it for anything: JSON is a text format that facilitates structured data interchange between all programming languages. JSON is syntax of braces, brackets, colons, and commas that is useful in many contexts, profiles, and applications. JSON was inspired by the object literals of JavaScript aka ECMAScript as defined in the ECMAScript Language Specification, third Edition [1]. It does not attempt to impose ECMAScript’s internal data representations on other programming languages. Instead, it shares a small subset of ECMAScript’s textual representations with all other programming languages. JSON is agnostic about numbers. In any programming language, there can be a variety of number types of various capacities and complements, fixed or floating, binary or decimal. That can make interchange between different programming languages difficult. JSON instead offers only the representation of numbers that humans use: a sequence of digits. All programming languages know how to make sense of digit sequences even if they disagree on internal representations. That is enough to allow interchange. JSON text is a sequence of Unicode code points. JSON also depends on Unicode in the hex numbers used in the \u escapement [sic] notation. Programming languages vary widely on whether they support objects, and if so, what characteristics and constraints the objects offer. The models of object systems can be wildly divergent and are continuing to evolve. JSON instead provides a simple notation for expressing collections of name/value pairs. Most programming languages will have some feature for representing such collections, which can go by names like record, struct, dict, map, hash, or object. JSON also provides support for ordered lists of values. All programming languages will have some feature for representing such lists, which can go by names like array, vector, or list. Because objects and arrays can nest, trees and other complex data structures can be represented. By accepting JSON’s simple convention, complex data structures can be easily interchanged between incompatible programming languages. JSON does not support cyclic graphs, at least not directly. JSON is not indicated for applications requiring binary data. It is expected that other standards will refer to this one, strictly adhering to the JSON text format, while imposing restrictions on various encoding details. Such standards may require specific behaviours. JSON itself specifies no behaviour. Because it is so simple, it is not expected that the JSON grammar will ever change. This gives JSON, as a foundational notation, tremendous stability. JSON was first presented to the world at the JSON.org website in 2001. JSON stands for JavaScript Object Notation. -- John Cowan http://ccil.org/~cowan cowan@ccil.org SAXParserFactory [is] a hideous, evil monstrosity of a class that should be hung, shot, beheaded, drawn and quartered, burned at the stake, buried in unconsecrated ground, dug up, cremated, and the ashes tossed in the Tiber while the complete cast of Wicked sings "Ding dong, the witch is dead." --Elliotte Rusty Harold on xml-dev From jorge@jorgechamorro.com Tue Oct 8 10:20:38 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC75611E80FB for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 10:20:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.976 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dUwYjDkHJAJG for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 10:20:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ee0-f48.google.com (mail-ee0-f48.google.com [74.125.83.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C76021E80BF for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 10:20:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ee0-f48.google.com with SMTP id l10so4167570eei.35 for ; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 10:20:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=OrlqIw6evnbe4lgSmNyOGDVPWI+zjc2aXCSNot876tQ=; b=PXfLeej6xgqDcWF2qRlNca00oALGJN1G10mFtfF23pudz6sX8PRDDYq0D/nZOFr/XE K7lt7NMZS3Vk1kDmGDmUxfpSaoM9mcRpQupL/X18AEgXhjehxe7dfr7vlYYh0y12hpkI okQo29DqJ6iWKdGZKfb8Kezps1NtRirA0Kgb8FeoIo2LTdeDjRCSWZlianMvsjT4siTu QjJ60stMntLlEHRS7brlaBoQnS8iWfnokWsdXrjO4vIoymlr7xUHxJMXwJyPxtwCfpQf zsJp1EsT32ztXIVK863gzs9RzWkeyVfm53cJABqNs4cggVIL4Q5vA6/qaLWmC9daEBBS TA2g== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkK4xi+ICW5iCzExwc2AuADs5ZeglFyB4IT5qeuBaJV16gKcZF34Kp1Cz/zGOLa4bITysWw MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.15.75.73 with SMTP id k49mr4023743eey.36.1381252821041; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 10:20:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.14.193.196 with HTTP; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 10:20:20 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20131008164219.GA16081@mercury.ccil.org> References: <525429ED.5000705@gmail.com> <04FC3123-33A4-40DA-AD5D-DA543435DE56@wirfs-brock.com> <20131008164219.GA16081@mercury.ccil.org> Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 19:20:20 +0200 Message-ID: From: Jorge Chamorro Bieling To: John Cowan Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c1af4cbe7fe804e83dfb0c Cc: Allen Wirfs-Brock , Larry Masinter , Tim Bray , JSON WG , "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" , "www-tag@w3.org" Subject: Re: [Json] FYI ECMA, W3C, IETF coordination on JSON X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 17:20:39 -0000 --001a11c1af4cbe7fe804e83dfb0c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 That's it. It says all that needs to be said. And in a language that anybody can understand. Very good. --- ( Jorge )(); --001a11c1af4cbe7fe804e83dfb0c Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable That's it. It says all that needs to be said. =C2=A0And in a language t= hat anybody can understand. Very good.

---=C2=A0
( Jorge )();

--001a11c1af4cbe7fe804e83dfb0c-- From pfpschneider@gmail.com Tue Oct 8 11:26:12 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8926D21E828D for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 11:26:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.523 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.523 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.076, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rcL+EZi1AeDW for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 11:26:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qa0-x229.google.com (mail-qa0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c00::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A5F221E8289 for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 11:26:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qa0-f41.google.com with SMTP id ii20so4138481qab.0 for ; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 11:26:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=AnSKd1NkiebNH0XhWqlQUJnjubrtyTp/pTVzhu+OzHI=; b=wIapZ2K1KxcsVZPzbiUZEfMLTrbVx+wqDtj4mC5o9FOKK53uOzTCyh68hsKqBcbmwh 9pUWHPhWNfxSG4F3+mhIEjvEZbAPXnkSXBOdLYPGX4p1s/QcDM/inbbblqqNzrqGrRfq bHMM5sFa/OPjEoaTlDz8wx3U7lOnEHTptFhkApeXJy8QJvzk9TjHPg/Qua4/MWX4tvOT YijMyVBUTwRTBB0qlyX6EKdHsWZV2wPFFfzrUk5/bmKIlH41XTxZvfk5+oSlnjsH48jl ZyczWucy8KelXZXdSyZgToEkbLWTYrGC9B4wNkzcMcw4P2ffzbU8ypgZsBSFunGIBmfr Fwzw== X-Received: by 10.49.101.79 with SMTP id fe15mr4231796qeb.28.1381256768915; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 11:26:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (out-on-245.wireless.telus.com. [207.219.69.245]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id e7sm76635873qag.7.1969.12.31.16.00.00 (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 08 Oct 2013 11:26:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <52544E3C.7000907@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 11:26:04 -0700 From: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130805 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Cowan References: <525429ED.5000705@gmail.com> <04FC3123-33A4-40DA-AD5D-DA543435DE56@wirfs-brock.com> <20131008164219.GA16081@mercury.ccil.org> In-Reply-To: <20131008164219.GA16081@mercury.ccil.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Allen Wirfs-Brock , JSON WG , Tim Bray , "www-tag@w3.org" , Larry Masinter Subject: Re: [Json] FYI ECMA, W3C, IETF coordination on JSON X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 18:26:12 -0000 The paragraph on numbers, see below, seems rather dangerous, as well as being incorrect. The paragraph on strings, also below, ignores all the problems with escaped code units that do not represent a Unicode code point. peter On 10/08/2013 09:42 AM, John Cowan wrote: > Allen Wirfs-Brock scripsit: > >> The draft was approved by a letter ballot of the Ecma General Assembly. It is now available as Ecma-404: > Almost all of it is derived directly from the RFC, with some editorial > cleanup. The Introduction, however, is new. I reproduce it here in case > the Editor wishes to mine it for anything: > [...] > > JSON is agnostic about numbers. In any programming language, > there can be a variety of number types of various capacities > and complements, fixed or floating, binary or decimal. That > can make interchange between different programming languages > difficult. JSON instead offers only the representation of numbers > that humans use: a sequence of digits. All programming languages > know how to make sense of digit sequences even if they disagree > on internal representations. That is enough to allow interchange. > > JSON text is a sequence of Unicode code points. JSON also depends > on Unicode in the hex numbers used in the \u escapement [sic] > notation. > [...] From tbray@textuality.com Tue Oct 8 11:32:25 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA78921E828E for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 11:32:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.976 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C3VZsO0mT8eM for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 11:32:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vb0-f47.google.com (mail-vb0-f47.google.com [209.85.212.47]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 323E221E828C for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 11:32:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vb0-f47.google.com with SMTP id h10so4534243vbh.34 for ; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 11:32:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=TFT8PhFF6O0bctJ4QdUr207nMBuzYEzlswK876Tlg6M=; b=hZ+C23qFKaq5E2J6+mm7GGL6nQOFGBGikmkFXrQTd4qkzms9qyqkzqVDJg0R3i4fgm gfWzWDJspfKtMGOTlzg2WwGd0JkapDkGcCFS7X59+MnX/Hw2lWCDesuK08pAU04MLl2Q XzqJH8cqNmHk6G5XBIMjsd/5AIZ9G0dIE7+rEd8M4lskbshGPqlEBJLRanaB2XD8EIj9 P09X/4SbRw3RLzJK9780r59s0LLubEsKn1E960dqgB97vnS6c9VVaAiqVMESykaljiFv 0IzqX1mih0yS4hWszhF/S4rcEFnFJq3N88AK6y1Tw0rUXbZJ1hPsvuWlNW1X89QztUjc nYeA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnMnJFIVZdat25BIG6h4ad+QfofPAL0QJPQGWFxmpzTjXxsPkeRB2lnrTs6GbOU4jIXUzVE MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.52.227.6 with SMTP id rw6mr1741160vdc.19.1381257133620; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 11:32:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.174.197 with HTTP; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 11:32:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [96.49.81.176] In-Reply-To: <52544E3C.7000907@gmail.com> References: <525429ED.5000705@gmail.com> <04FC3123-33A4-40DA-AD5D-DA543435DE56@wirfs-brock.com> <20131008164219.GA16081@mercury.ccil.org> <52544E3C.7000907@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 11:32:13 -0700 Message-ID: From: Tim Bray To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01161660cb439504e83efc72 Cc: Allen Wirfs-Brock , JSON WG , John Cowan , "www-tag@w3.org" , Larry Masinter Subject: Re: [Json] FYI ECMA, W3C, IETF coordination on JSON X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 18:32:25 -0000 --089e01161660cb439504e83efc72 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On the other hand, the opening paragraph of section 9 makes sure that you=E2=80=99re really clear about which characters may and may not be place= d between quotation marks. On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider < pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote: > The paragraph on numbers, see below, seems rather dangerous, as well as > being incorrect. The paragraph on strings, also below, ignores all the > problems with escaped code units that do not represent a Unicode code poi= nt. > > peter > > > On 10/08/2013 09:42 AM, John Cowan wrote: > >> Allen Wirfs-Brock scripsit: >> >> The draft was approved by a letter ballot of the Ecma General Assembly. >>> It is now available as Ecma-404: >>> >> Almost all of it is derived directly from the RFC, with some editorial >> cleanup. The Introduction, however, is new. I reproduce it here in cas= e >> the Editor wishes to mine it for anything: >> [...] >> >> >> JSON is agnostic about numbers. In any programming language, >> there can be a variety of number types of various capacities >> and complements, fixed or floating, binary or decimal. That >> can make interchange between different programming languages >> difficult. JSON instead offers only the representation of numbers >> that humans use: a sequence of digits. All programming languages >> know how to make sense of digit sequences even if they disagree >> on internal representations. That is enough to allow interchange. >> >> JSON text is a sequence of Unicode code points. JSON also depends >> on Unicode in the hex numbers used in the \u escapement [sic] >> notation. >> [...] >> > > --089e01161660cb439504e83efc72 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On the other hand, the opening paragraph of section 9 make= s sure that you=E2=80=99re really clear about which characters may and may = not be placed between quotation marks.
=

On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneid= er@gmail.com> wrote:
The paragraph on numbers, see below, seems rather dangerous, as well as bei= ng incorrect. =C2=A0The paragraph on strings, also below, ignores all the p= roblems with escaped code units that do not represent a Unicode code point.=

peter


On 10/08/2013 09:42 AM, John Cowan wrote:
Allen Wirfs-Brock scripsit:

The draft was approved by a letter ballot of the Ecma General Assembly. =C2= =A0It is now available as Ecma-404:
Almost all of it is derived directly from the RFC, with some editorial
cleanup. =C2=A0The Introduction, however, is new. =C2=A0I reproduce it here= in case
the Editor wishes to mine it for anything:
[...]


=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0JSON is agnostic about numbers. In any programming lang= uage,
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0there can be a variety of number types of various capac= ities
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0and complements, fixed or floating, binary or decimal. = That
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0can make interchange between different programming lang= uages
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0difficult. JSON instead offers only the representation = of numbers
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0that humans use: a sequence of digits. All programming = languages
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0know how to make sense of digit sequences even if they = disagree
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0on internal representations. That is enough to allow in= terchange.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0JSON text is a sequence of Unicode code points. JSON al= so depends
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0on Unicode in the hex numbers used in the \u escapement= [sic]
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0notation.
[...]


--089e01161660cb439504e83efc72-- From jorge@jorgechamorro.com Tue Oct 8 11:44:04 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B60A11E80ED for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 11:44:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QEZBOTpdDI3v for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 11:43:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wg0-f42.google.com (mail-wg0-f42.google.com [74.125.82.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EDC811E80D9 for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 11:43:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wg0-f42.google.com with SMTP id m15so6821076wgh.5 for ; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 11:43:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:mime-version:content-type:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to; bh=3E0ib2DRY2D2rZfckb4H4qiY7qLoTLq9hal2D55lb7Q=; b=J0/Cp118I5G/1yvUmqOgrJJWzJjJfJ9YivYk8WRiXNsaauHQVZoQNnRmvZhxZtUFfD ZqAf2jzyh9xhNHS6orf09T+3d2piMilm964Gyi2yzt5H7X7jVv3Eb9NKX9sxb8dmzpdq bROSOMW9nE3/x3ZNQCiODqzyg4q1iAytGm1GzBv7M+TzBf3BI7ytSO/RyfnHYgsl0SbD 6dCT6SrEU81SYHW455EX+C0oFZOaWIArALnVoX69DioSTxKNcbFBPCxM9QgsncLiKehL eDpivSAdhiiBpcR+LkiKCPBqYCooA8lnnr2FPWbPCLsD410Pxu/bBupG5wFmdWTHQTne CAZw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnnMX8/nXOGI/WjXDJM2agmrDhdGhznUpbCc21i5VTxDBW4HRHAG3PF79Izb/lw8DpRsV1r X-Received: by 10.194.123.8 with SMTP id lw8mr3153309wjb.40.1381257832698; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 11:43:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.10.50] (243.Red-83-49-8.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net. [83.49.8.243]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id om10sm7716617wic.5.1969.12.31.16.00.00 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 08 Oct 2013 11:43:52 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Jorge Chamorro In-Reply-To: <52544E3C.7000907@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 20:43:50 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <3BDEC79B-6B72-4282-955A-D31E156DB29F@jorgechamorro.com> References: <525429ED.5000705@gmail.com> <04FC3123-33A4-40DA-AD5D-DA543435DE56@wirfs-brock.com> <20131008164219.GA16081@mercury.ccil.org> <52544E3C.7000907@gmail.com> To: Peter F. Patel-Schneider X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085) Cc: Allen Wirfs-Brock , John Cowan , Larry Masinter , Tim Bray , JSON WG , "www-tag@w3.org" Subject: Re: [Json] FYI ECMA, W3C, IETF coordination on JSON X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 18:44:04 -0000 On 08/10/2013, at 20:26, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > The paragraph on numbers, see below, seems rather dangerous, as well = as being incorrect. Is it? Why? --=20 ( Jorge )(); From pfpschneider@gmail.com Tue Oct 8 11:59:14 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6FD321F842B for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 11:58:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.792 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.792 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.807, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2LfFcodqdpWM for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 11:58:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qe0-x233.google.com (mail-qe0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c02::233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0193721F841D for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 11:58:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qe0-f51.google.com with SMTP id ne12so7003947qeb.24 for ; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 11:58:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=sQrJm6zPMLx5epWk4FESGKL6bz0Uqz23/Bv+nbwrrHw=; b=dXOn2o1bV1yAzAboygyenuXsZOZUWLq3cd1TOq4cnr/t4kSp9QDWSRfP0MZBGPQDhX UdBXAuHQvm/tChI6YC0mdhoGT0kvmvJyIELgGEvpZhF6PP/jMo2s/M3UbfYSOzVP7kJl /h+OhynEVHjf0BjxQMZ0O9mxs5IwWwwMFbbp4ZPO+0H44MmQG7rxtWpl0Par+g3KOGMw vqrcjIQ1LUezbpse37GP4OMuuWbch50eNQYqf1MaaMhOyT9oqFw18e3h6S7xUrcUKIOb catud0jzCLMatyjnQaz4hM7a7EupTzIUk7NzTfcaPRIeFIbGJLqICec/9xKuxyxyGoQn E8Mw== X-Received: by 10.49.116.19 with SMTP id js19mr4481374qeb.34.1381258717821; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 11:58:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (out-on-245.wireless.telus.com. [207.219.69.245]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id x1sm76925007qai.6.1969.12.31.16.00.00 (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 08 Oct 2013 11:58:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <525455D4.8090105@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 11:58:28 -0700 From: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130805 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tim Bray References: <525429ED.5000705@gmail.com> <04FC3123-33A4-40DA-AD5D-DA543435DE56@wirfs-brock.com> <20131008164219.GA16081@mercury.ccil.org> <52544E3C.7000907@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: Allen Wirfs-Brock , JSON WG , John Cowan , "www-tag@w3.org" , Larry Masinter Subject: Re: [Json] FYI ECMA, W3C, IETF coordination on JSON X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 18:59:19 -0000 Yes indeed. Yes indeed. The double quote may not appear within quotation marks, by a two-to-one vote. peter On 10/08/2013 11:32 AM, Tim Bray wrote: > On the other hand, the opening paragraph of section 9 makes sure that you’re > really clear about which characters may and may not be placed between > quotation marks. > > > On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider > > wrote: > > The paragraph on numbers, see below, seems rather dangerous, as well as > being incorrect. The paragraph on strings, also below, ignores all the > problems with escaped code units that do not represent a Unicode code point. > > peter > > > On 10/08/2013 09:42 AM, John Cowan wrote: > > Allen Wirfs-Brock scripsit: > > The draft was approved by a letter ballot of the Ecma General > Assembly. It is now available as Ecma-404: > > Almost all of it is derived directly from the RFC, with some editorial > cleanup. The Introduction, however, is new. I reproduce it here in > case > the Editor wishes to mine it for anything: > [...] > > > JSON is agnostic about numbers. In any programming language, > there can be a variety of number types of various capacities > and complements, fixed or floating, binary or decimal. That > can make interchange between different programming languages > difficult. JSON instead offers only the representation of numbers > that humans use: a sequence of digits. All programming languages > know how to make sense of digit sequences even if they disagree > on internal representations. That is enough to allow interchange. > > JSON text is a sequence of Unicode code points. JSON also depends > on Unicode in the hex numbers used in the \u escapement [sic] > notation. > [...] > > > From pfpschneider@gmail.com Tue Oct 8 12:14:43 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BE4D21F9248 for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 12:14:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.954 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.954 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.354, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PjfqOp9HuT0M for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 12:14:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qe0-x22f.google.com (mail-qe0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c02::22f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8D9C21F92B9 for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 12:14:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qe0-f47.google.com with SMTP id b4so747655qen.20 for ; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 12:14:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=yESz4YdB8ZLCRmB5WXtTP32IZldBoxJm9w+I3ueuEzE=; b=tL8oKTODQhKzE245q8f4vxjHs/qWJZrpEc49K3zRO2mH6j2qXkn2qdycHLUdgGNPRt A5S/ErMt8M5GLyC397QIK0r8ZHmBUSiJUMms6az9e33Of4nnVlNVW4pxXtdUJkqeBqow eECkMh5iJnFzIBJNXfk3hFjhCSVFvjq04MhNA09iI78+karIU6niA7X4lrF5+kXHyKhH pq78j9kDr2qIhVkyTbtN82H0NyLq6PfvTw5d2ur8OFUsnb0rWubZUhwQXlrD+ewBG296 nnWHccnRibx2AI3v4TS470T7gcUE6AhOSoI3q7NIgzETRTm2967ou0Frt249YEoea50E n9gg== X-Received: by 10.224.171.196 with SMTP id i4mr6153727qaz.38.1381259680436; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 12:14:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (out-on-245.wireless.telus.com. [207.219.69.245]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id u3sm8009416qej.8.1969.12.31.16.00.00 (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 08 Oct 2013 12:14:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5254599C.6090604@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 12:14:36 -0700 From: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130805 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jorge Chamorro References: <525429ED.5000705@gmail.com> <04FC3123-33A4-40DA-AD5D-DA543435DE56@wirfs-brock.com> <20131008164219.GA16081@mercury.ccil.org> <52544E3C.7000907@gmail.com> <3BDEC79B-6B72-4282-955A-D31E156DB29F@jorgechamorro.com> In-Reply-To: <3BDEC79B-6B72-4282-955A-D31E156DB29F@jorgechamorro.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Allen Wirfs-Brock , John Cowan , Larry Masinter , Tim Bray , JSON WG , "www-tag@w3.org" Subject: Re: [Json] FYI ECMA, W3C, IETF coordination on JSON X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 19:14:43 -0000 Well, for starters, interchanging non-integers can lead to loss of precision, which can be dangerous. Further, interchanging numbers without some notion of the limits of the receiver is also dangerous. Second, JSON does not only use sequences of digits to represent numbers, and there are many JSON numbers that cannot be represented as a sequence of base-ten digits. Third, there are many numbers that humans interchange that cannot be represented as finite sequences of digits, even if you allow also a decimal point and a negative sign, for example 1/7, pi, and the square root of two. (Perhaps the wording in the introduction is meant to allow infinite sequences of digits, but then using JSON for interchange is a bit difficult.) My understanding is that limiting the representation of numbers to something like the JSON syntax is more of a computer thing than a human thing. peter On 10/08/2013 11:43 AM, Jorge Chamorro wrote: > On 08/10/2013, at 20:26, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > >> The paragraph on numbers, see below, seems rather dangerous, as well as being incorrect. > Is it? Why? > From bkardell@gmail.com Tue Oct 8 12:22:08 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5411121F9E9D for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 12:22:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 53I812eNVVOK for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 12:22:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lb0-x22a.google.com (mail-lb0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::22a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9541621F9E89 for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 12:21:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lb0-f170.google.com with SMTP id w7so7388312lbi.29 for ; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 12:21:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=irm+KH9iXGOEwFJDBmr34E6rOpmZeYa8KokZC0xOB1w=; b=nBtnP200MlxSz91rKGbU3xuFOQGFMlUa9i7RyOT6e07VIKz8BsTLW0PA/l0qitVX8t 5VtXxZ1omKYw7bXJax/ozFNwpjazCyeaMP+/357kAEX/fMVlhk43IMtWXfSM0kwekG01 Zqf2uJgi4+Vc0UIi/XIAUjoKBrFSzCX3xwDX+7E+0KI/2qWj1xIdlZbSY5+eBu5VgcCt ngZx3MclUKFcu6bdDiDVXbOYj3ZSyUkkYxQJvTRBy33BU8qh9atSElIrNwKWaUkiV8Oq Sw1Z8cn1tW8TFrwgo6hPiOyxDDFH0FocmkEsHLbY1Dqw3SRCuCSVl7awunv/OsPjn960 +IWw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.57.49 with SMTP id f17mr3800089lbq.26.1381260118507; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 12:21:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.173.133 with HTTP; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 12:21:58 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <525455D4.8090105@gmail.com> References: <525429ED.5000705@gmail.com> <04FC3123-33A4-40DA-AD5D-DA543435DE56@wirfs-brock.com> <20131008164219.GA16081@mercury.ccil.org> <52544E3C.7000907@gmail.com> <525455D4.8090105@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 12:21:58 -0700 Message-ID: From: Brian Kardell To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1133eacab4c83604e83faecb X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 12:36:43 -0700 Cc: Allen Wirfs-Brock , John Cowan , JSON WG , Tim Bray , Larry Masinter , "www-tag@w3.org" Subject: Re: [Json] FYI ECMA, W3C, IETF coordination on JSON X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 19:25:11 -0000 --001a1133eacab4c83604e83faecb Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider < pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote: > Yes indeed. Yes indeed. The double quote may not appear within > quotation marks, by a two-to-one vote. > > peter > > > On 10/08/2013 11:32 AM, Tim Bray wrote: > >> On the other hand, the opening paragraph of section 9 makes sure that >> you=92re really clear about which characters may and may not be placed >> between quotation marks. >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider < >> pfpschneider@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> The paragraph on numbers, see below, seems rather dangerous, as well >> as >> being incorrect. The paragraph on strings, also below, ignores all >> the >> problems with escaped code units that do not represent a Unicode cod= e >> point. >> >> peter >> >> >> On 10/08/2013 09:42 AM, John Cowan wrote: >> >> Allen Wirfs-Brock scripsit: >> >> The draft was approved by a letter ballot of the Ecma Genera= l >> Assembly. It is now available as Ecma-404: >> >> Almost all of it is derived directly from the RFC, with some >> editorial >> cleanup. The Introduction, however, is new. I reproduce it her= e >> in >> case >> the Editor wishes to mine it for anything: >> [...] >> >> >> JSON is agnostic about numbers. In any programming language= , >> there can be a variety of number types of various capacitie= s >> and complements, fixed or floating, binary or decimal. That >> can make interchange between different programming language= s >> difficult. JSON instead offers only the representation of >> numbers >> that humans use: a sequence of digits. All programming >> languages >> know how to make sense of digit sequences even if they >> disagree >> on internal representations. That is enough to allow >> interchange. >> >> JSON text is a sequence of Unicode code points. JSON also >> depends >> on Unicode in the hex numbers used in the \u escapement [si= c] >> notation. >> [...] >> >> >> >> > > So I guess my big question I keep asking myself is this: Despite the fact that it didn't involve standards bodies and committees to get out the door - JSON is really *really* interoperable. There are potentially some edge cases, but given its importance to the Web it does seem like the ECMA version is the most important baseline here. If we want to make improvements, why not just invent some other thing - not JSON... Call it "super json" or "phil" or - just something else...And let that something else attempt to address perceived problems and make some minor comments about the ability to parse a subset of it with the standard JSON parsers that conform to ECMA-404 or something and then go out there and compete and see if it actually does better. Maybe it will and we can all go have beers and laugh about it, but - maybe it won't and at least we don't have to break things. --=20 Brian Kardell :: @briankardell --001a1133eacab4c83604e83faecb Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pf= pschneider@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes indeed. =A0Yes indeed. =A0 The double qu= ote may not appear within quotation marks, by a two-to-one vote.

peter


On 10/08/2013 11:32 AM, Tim Bray wrote:
On the other hand, the opening paragraph of section 9 makes sure that you= =92re really clear about which characters may and may not be placed between= quotation marks.


On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com &= lt;mailto:pfpsc= hneider@gmail.com>> wrote:

=A0 =A0 The paragraph on numbers, see below, seems rather dangerous, as wel= l as
=A0 =A0 being incorrect. =A0The paragraph on strings, also below, ignores a= ll the
=A0 =A0 problems with escaped code units that do not represent a Unicode co= de point.

=A0 =A0 peter


=A0 =A0 On 10/08/2013 09:42 AM, John Cowan wrote:

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Allen Wirfs-Brock scripsit:

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 The draft was approved by a letter ballot of the Ec= ma General
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Assembly. =A0It is now available as Ecma-404:

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Almost all of it is derived directly from the RFC, with som= e editorial
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 cleanup. =A0The Introduction, however, is new. =A0I reprodu= ce it here in
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 case
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 the Editor wishes to mine it for anything:
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 [...]


=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0JSON is agnostic about numbers. In any programmi= ng language,
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0there can be a variety of number types of variou= s capacities
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0and complements, fixed or floating, binary or de= cimal. That
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0can make interchange between different programmi= ng languages
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0difficult. JSON instead offers only the represen= tation of numbers
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0that humans use: a sequence of digits. All progr= amming languages
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0know how to make sense of digit sequences even i= f they disagree
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0on internal representations. That is enough to a= llow interchange.

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0JSON text is a sequence of Unicode code points. = JSON also depends
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0on Unicode in the hex numbers used in the \u esc= apement [sic]
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0notation.
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 [...]






So I guess my big question I keep asking myself is t= his: =A0Despite the fact that it didn't involve standards bodies and co= mmittees to get out the door - JSON is really *really* interoperable. =A0Th= ere are potentially some edge cases, but given its importance to the Web it= does seem like the ECMA version is the most important baseline here. =A0If= we want to make improvements, why not just invent some other thing - not J= SON... Call it "super json" or "phil" or - just somethi= ng else...And let that something else attempt to address perceived problems= and make some minor comments about the ability to parse a subset of it wit= h the standard JSON parsers that conform to ECMA-404 or something and then = go out there and compete and see if it actually does better. =A0Maybe it wi= ll and we can all go have beers and laugh about it, but - maybe it won'= t and at least we don't have to break things.
=A0
--
Brian Kardell :: @briankardell=A0
--001a1133eacab4c83604e83faecb-- From cabo@tzi.org Tue Oct 8 12:37:32 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7634E21F9343 for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 12:37:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.159 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.159 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.090, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4SXS2anHaXx9 for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 12:37:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BF7721F9AC4 for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 12:37:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r98JbF6q015999; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 21:37:15 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.217.105] (p5489368E.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.137.54.142]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D21A3B5F; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 21:37:13 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: <52544E3C.7000907@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 21:37:12 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <525429ED.5000705@gmail.com> <04FC3123-33A4-40DA-AD5D-DA543435DE56@wirfs-brock.com> <20131008164219.GA16081@mercury.ccil.org> <52544E3C.7000907@gmail.com> To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) Cc: JSON WG Subject: Re: [Json] FYI ECMA, W3C, IETF coordination on JSON X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 19:37:34 -0000 On Oct 8, 2013, at 20:26, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" = wrote: > The paragraph on strings, also below, ignores all the problems with = escaped code units that do not represent a Unicode code point. Actually, no, this point is not ignored at all. It makes it very clear that JSON is composed of Unicode code points. UTF-16 only occurs once, where the twelve-character-escape for non-BMP = code points is explained. So that may be one point where following ECMA-404*) might make the work = of this WG simpler. Gr=FC=DFe, Carsten *) Great numbering :-) We should try to get RFC 7404 :-) From allen@wirfs-brock.com Tue Oct 8 12:37:59 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6184A21F9AC4 for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 12:37:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.999, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rAK5Qq7tJysl for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 12:37:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org (mho-03-ewr.mailhop.org [204.13.248.66]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0681721F9343 for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 12:37:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 069-064-236-244.pdx.net ([69.64.236.244] helo=[192.168.0.14]) by mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1VTd6M-0005Yw-Vf; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 19:37:51 +0000 X-Mail-Handler: Dyn Standard SMTP by Dyn X-Originating-IP: 69.64.236.244 X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@dyndns.com (see http://www.dyndns.com/services/sendlabs/outbound_abuse.html for abuse reporting information) X-MHO-User: U2FsdGVkX19MLNaTWmfp1iWZBazJ2mQygnhqZT+KRkY= Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Allen Wirfs-Brock In-Reply-To: <525434D5.6070409@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 12:37:43 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <87FFB7EC-C0D3-4269-82AA-1D73E47A00FF@wirfs-brock.com> References: <525429ED.5000705@gmail.com> <04FC3123-33A4-40DA-AD5D-DA543435DE56@wirfs-brock.com> <525434D5.6070409@gmail.com> To: Peter F. Patel-Schneider X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085) Cc: JSON WG , Tim Bray , "www-tag@w3.org" , Larry Masinter Subject: Re: [Json] FYI ECMA, W3C, IETF coordination on JSON X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 19:37:59 -0000 On Oct 8, 2013, at 9:37 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > What is the relationship (supposed to be) between this standard and = the JSON MIME type? As far as I can tell they cover precisely the same = ground, except for interoperability warnings and admonitions. >=20 > peter I can't speak officially for TC39 but I can give you my personal = interpretation of the discussions and consensus that lead to the release = of Ecma-404. JSON is used for many purposes. All of those uses require at least two = agreements between a producer and consumer of JSON text: 1) There must be agreement upon the syntactic structure of JSON text so = it can consistently decomposed into its constituent elements.=20 2) The must be agreement upon the semantic interpretation of the = syntactic elements. Ecma-404 address the first of these needs. It specifies the JSON syntax = structure for sequences of Unicode code points and nothing more. In particular, it does not address any issues relating to the semantic = interpretation of that syntactic structure. This includes issues such = as the maximum precision of a "JSON number" or even a mathematical = interpretation of a JSON numbers. Semantis also includes any meaning = associated with the "names" of JSON Object name/value pairs including = issues of ordering or repetition. Finally, there are likely to be many = domain specific semantic issues that may be loosely described as the = "schema" of a particular JSON text. The TC39 consensus was that there = is no universal semantics that can be applied to all uses of JSON texts. = It is up to produces and consumers to agree upon a semantics. Perhaps = via ad hoc agreements or perhaps via other standards that address = specific use cases. TC39 currently has no plans to develop any = additional standards at this semantic level. There are other situational agreements that may be necessary in order to = coordinate a producer and consumer of JSON text. For example, Ecma-404 defines a syntax over unicode code points. A = producer and consumer may communicate in a manner that does not directly = transfer such code points. In that case, there needs to be agreement = upon an transport encoding of JSON text. Such encodings might place = restrictions upon the JSON text it can deal with. For example, it = might specify an UTF-8 encoding and refuse to encode JSON text that = includes unmatched surrogates. To me, this seems to be where the = question of a JSON MIME type lives. As far as far as I know, nobody has = suggested that TC39 should issues a standard relating to this encoding = level or concerning the JSON MIME type. This seems like an appropriate = subject area for the IETF. Another area of coordination relates to the translation of JSON texts = to/from language specific data structures. Use of JSON does not require = such a translation (a producer could just directly output syntactically = valid JSON text and a consumer could take direct action as it parses a = JSON text) but expectations and experience suggest this usage mode to be = very common. Translation to/from a syntactically valid JSON text = requires the specification of a mapping from the JSON syntactic elements = specified in Ecma-404 to language specific data structures. Such a = translation is itself a semantics applied to the JSON syntax. Like any = semantics it may place restrictions on the JSON texts that it will = accept or produce. Ecma-262, the ECMAScript Language Specification, = includes the definition of such a mapping of JSON text to ECMAScript = language values. The next edition of Ecma-262 will be updated to = normatively reference Ecma-404. It will continue to impose ECMAScript = specific semantic restrictions such as the conversion of JSON number = tokens to ECMAScript Number values and a specific interpretation of = repeated names within a JSON object. Ecma-262 doesn't say that this is = the only way to translate a JSON text into ECMAScript language values. = It simply defines the translation behavior that is provided by the = standard ECMAScipt library. Other languages are likely to define there = own mappings to/from JSON text. TC39 internally agreed that the foundation for the use of JSON is the = syntactic structure of JSON text and that is the purpose of Ecma-404. = There was no consensus (and minimal discussion) concerning encoding or = semantic issues (other than the Ecma-262 mapping) or even a consensus on = the need/desirability of a single standard addressing semanitic issues. = TC39 is not currently working on additional standards that address those = areas and I doubt that this will change in the near future. If a need = emerges addressing a specific use case or application domain that fits = within the TC39 charter (just as an example, using JSON to encode = ECMAScript debugging information) then we might start an activity in = that area. Allen =20= From paul.hoffman@vpnc.org Tue Oct 8 12:39:56 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD5EB21F9BDB for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 12:39:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 70DgatfN4dqK for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 12:39:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AB1E21F9767 for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 12:39:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [165.227.249.247] (sn80.proper.com [75.101.18.80]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id r98JdNbe087603 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 8 Oct 2013 12:39:24 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: hoffman.proper.com: Host sn80.proper.com [75.101.18.80] claimed to be [165.227.249.247] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) From: Paul Hoffman In-Reply-To: <52544E3C.7000907@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 12:39:22 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <1D80C95D-7ACC-4AAC-BC5E-7AE4E2FFE650@vpnc.org> References: <525429ED.5000705@gmail.com> <04FC3123-33A4-40DA-AD5D-DA543435DE56@wirfs-brock.com> <20131008164219.GA16081@mercury.ccil.org> <52544E3C.7000907@gmail.com> To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) Cc: JSON WG Subject: Re: [Json] FYI ECMA, W3C, IETF coordination on JSON X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 19:39:56 -0000 On Oct 8, 2013, at 11:26 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider = wrote: > The paragraph on numbers, see below, seems rather dangerous, as well = as being incorrect. The paragraph on strings, also below, ignores all = the problems with escaped code units that do not represent a Unicode = code point. If you have issues with the spec that was produced by TC39, it would be = much better if you brought it up with them directly, not here. Few TC39 = members are on this list, and the ECMA procedures are really different = than the IETF procedures. --Paul Hoffman= From pfpschneider@gmail.com Tue Oct 8 12:49:06 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18F4521F936F for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 12:49:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.894 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.894 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.295, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tkXPg7OiuvEY for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 12:49:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qc0-x229.google.com (mail-qc0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A55921F8F2A for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 12:49:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qc0-f169.google.com with SMTP id c9so6384838qcz.0 for ; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 12:48:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=KqFr7m8b5be4Ben7pF/0XS+P+CEekX4W45MyEiKrXAc=; b=WUm21W6WhNvtPWpeikyP2U30C1Dyc6YMcKV7/Z1KlQO2oMur9A6r6DuJGQIXCxkJ2K PV9CARXAlD3c6TMayJj8P0g7vQa/A8Br0R5ysKSOZlv649C6tIylyp+srppGODrMzwcr LM9QuhuCyPfQ9HIfQAzOo6P4w7pe5g9tjFDNVSytnlUL75NJXGFogGXYek2ETa0Bw8hf v90RhO0Ba8Pzj8tacpk17+kgQowALvGpL1TUbTS1/urV6yDkc2AStckyNVj4JRZH6BbA pEim8mey8OaebNNaMfEPwUZ8mPxKPdYduFm4PYA/omaSHY5Hjbw4WGmj0L05T2c9ODzL F9wQ== X-Received: by 10.224.89.73 with SMTP id d9mr6100251qam.5.1381261739406; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 12:48:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (out-on-245.wireless.telus.com. [207.219.69.245]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id n7sm77413071qai.1.1969.12.31.16.00.00 (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 08 Oct 2013 12:48:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5254619E.7040407@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 12:48:46 -0700 From: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130805 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian Kardell References: <525429ED.5000705@gmail.com> <04FC3123-33A4-40DA-AD5D-DA543435DE56@wirfs-brock.com> <20131008164219.GA16081@mercury.ccil.org> <52544E3C.7000907@gmail.com> <525455D4.8090105@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Allen Wirfs-Brock , John Cowan , JSON WG , Tim Bray , Larry Masinter , "www-tag@w3.org" Subject: Re: [Json] FYI ECMA, W3C, IETF coordination on JSON X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 19:49:06 -0000 I had first thought that JSON was really really interoperable. Then I saw all the problems JSON-LD had with JSON. Then I looked closer and saw the problems in JSON with numbers, and strings, and arrays. Then I said to myself "There really is no problem - although the syntax of JSON is too loose, and the description is too loose, everyone interprets JSON as if it was transmitting ECMAScript values." Then I realized that this is not the case, and, moreover, that even ECMAScript JSON doesn't match the intuitive description of JSON. So I would say that JSON is only interoperable if you don't care too much about interoperability, and you don't hit any of the really ugly corner cases. So why then is JSON so successful? Well, it's easy to write, easy to read, matches programming language data fairly closely, and either you are both producer and consumer or you don't care that your system works correctly all the time so you don't care that JSON does not support interoperability. peter On 10/08/2013 12:21 PM, Brian Kardell wrote: [...] > > So I guess my big question I keep asking myself is this: Despite the fact > that it didn't involve standards bodies and committees to get out the door - > JSON is really *really* interoperable. There are potentially some edge > cases, but given its importance to the Web it does seem like the ECMA > version is the most important baseline here. If we want to make > improvements, why not just invent some other thing - not JSON... Call it > "super json" or "phil" or - just something else...And let that something > else attempt to address perceived problems and make some minor comments > about the ability to parse a subset of it with the standard JSON parsers > that conform to ECMA-404 or something and then go out there and compete and > see if it actually does better. Maybe it will and we can all go have beers > and laugh about it, but - maybe it won't and at least we don't have to break > things. > > > -- > Brian Kardell :: @briankardell From pfpschneider@gmail.com Tue Oct 8 13:01:52 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E291711E8101 for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 13:01:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.852 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.852 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.253, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fG99WzznuZVJ for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 13:01:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qa0-x22a.google.com (mail-qa0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c00::22a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B196911E80F5 for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 13:01:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qa0-f42.google.com with SMTP id w5so780677qac.8 for ; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 13:01:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=No6yzEQ9Od7Vw0iRHxq2Jt2KTx+YNiEdSNvEHv5wiOs=; b=Aacuy5a225rdtS1sS38arahqYjkZ+9n2lYSpcl+GpFP0jl+upkfNLqRO5Gp48ms0lM GYJVBgq6T3OKQDsRUh1C+21hRCeoVYiF97TSsaDDkSXBwRvAs0CXeecDwjW3VBRKV46B iWvqUTT9k8Lg4THKSEKZcRLlWq4OQ7zGpr6MITh9niqXtfGaEa55cN93rkEIXE3Y1Lxu HQITGxtsi/5jUIQXmwxWaM5I9aF1WW+3qi9ATm4bJVHNZC6oLEwrwEuzcMoMnwTrqmB1 Q8AhAcXmnW4xkXlPI89MuyMqMct23Um2r0sZeHW/gGQjQwO9Ru2EY48pZ5J30J0D5VwE uVjQ== X-Received: by 10.224.171.67 with SMTP id g3mr6334452qaz.13.1381262511184; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 13:01:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (out-on-245.wireless.telus.com. [207.219.69.245]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id h2sm67798626qev.0.1969.12.31.16.00.00 (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 08 Oct 2013 13:01:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <525464AA.8000608@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 13:01:46 -0700 From: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130805 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Carsten Bormann References: <525429ED.5000705@gmail.com> <04FC3123-33A4-40DA-AD5D-DA543435DE56@wirfs-brock.com> <20131008164219.GA16081@mercury.ccil.org> <52544E3C.7000907@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: JSON WG Subject: Re: [Json] FYI ECMA, W3C, IETF coordination on JSON X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 20:01:53 -0000 I think that everyone agrees that JSON text is a sequence of Unicode code points, but that's not the issue. The issue is whether JSON strings represent sequences of Unicode characters or something else. The JSON syntax in ECMA-404 appears to allow "\uDEAD" as a string. What Unicode character does this represent? A similar problem infects JSON numbers. There is no debate as to the syntax of JSON numbers. However, there is very little guidance on what a JSON number represents. Is -0 the same as 0? Is -0.0 the same as 0? Is 1.10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 the same as 1.1? Is 1E1 the same as 10? peter On 10/08/2013 12:37 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote: > On Oct 8, 2013, at 20:26, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" wrote: > >> The paragraph on strings, also below, ignores all the problems with escaped code units that do not represent a Unicode code point. > Actually, no, this point is not ignored at all. > > It makes it very clear that JSON is composed of Unicode code points. > UTF-16 only occurs once, where the twelve-character-escape for non-BMP code points is explained. > So that may be one point where following ECMA-404*) might make the work of this WG simpler. > > Gre, Carsten > > *) Great numbering :-) > We should try to get RFC 7404 :-) > From tsaloranta@gmail.com Tue Oct 8 13:02:09 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2B3A11E8110 for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 13:02:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.933 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.933 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, SARE_HTML_USL_OBFU=1.666] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PRcW85Igs8yo for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 13:02:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-we0-x235.google.com (mail-we0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CC4911E80F5 for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 13:02:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-we0-f181.google.com with SMTP id t60so3819425wes.26 for ; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 13:02:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=8ugn35lf9DSZhEnoLs+hKaYj9Ugy9pdtQq6ln/XjTxo=; b=dbHwD8bS1EVgSMBqTErT0yJgtoBOAIILcP9us2mAU8dIdvnp6qnlBTcLx6W1B3l2+h Mzi66hy5ysxkMc1stUU4zh4yP1FilPp1a281yV+56hvI1xlHYD4Gf1wcstz9Z4RJGQKh JmC/8BpmFKRZN3yRyzOgvlBe0VdpD9qqXmFRD6WZP/faslnBDr3mU6C+c3dqMv7jnRpy /lSFUNbPdTQ8+j1fdPoxQ/WajcE8PxE08N/f2/ZHu0JLqpPS/EL/nxFMppmZTqLOjE74 fvCmvF/aO9xm3eG9OQnEX3gV+cwqgF3ihik60zqeF3Ymlb5xXC5f+wmZnep8P5nGHTdc BEeA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.91.16 with SMTP id ca16mr3086750wib.57.1381262524411; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 13:02:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.42.9 with HTTP; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 13:02:04 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5254619E.7040407@gmail.com> References: <525429ED.5000705@gmail.com> <04FC3123-33A4-40DA-AD5D-DA543435DE56@wirfs-brock.com> <20131008164219.GA16081@mercury.ccil.org> <52544E3C.7000907@gmail.com> <525455D4.8090105@gmail.com> <5254619E.7040407@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 13:02:04 -0700 Message-ID: From: Tatu Saloranta To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d043c08101bfcd704e8403ecb Cc: Allen Wirfs-Brock , John Cowan , Larry Masinter , Brian Kardell , Tim Bray , JSON WG , "www-tag@w3.org" Subject: Re: [Json] FYI ECMA, W3C, IETF coordination on JSON X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 20:02:09 -0000 --f46d043c08101bfcd704e8403ecb Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 12:48 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider < pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote: > I had first thought that JSON was really really interoperable. Then I saw > all the problems JSON-LD had with JSON. Then I looked closer and saw Could you elaborate bit on what kinds of problems there are? the problems in JSON with numbers, and strings, and arrays. Then I said to > myself "There really is no problem - although the syntax of JSON is too > loose, and the description is too loose, everyone interprets JSON as if it > was transmitting ECMAScript values." Then I realized that this is not the > case, and, moreover, that even ECMAScript JSON doesn't match the intuitive > description of JSON. > > So I would say that JSON is only interoperable if you don't care too much > about interoperability, and you don't hit any of the really ugly corner > cases. > > So why then is JSON so successful? Well, it's easy to write, easy to read, > matches programming language data fairly closely, and either you are both > producer and consumer or you don't care that your system works correctly > all the time so you don't care that JSON does not support interoperability. > > I keep hearing all the claims of non-interoperability, but have seen barely any problems that are actually on JSON data format level. Almost only one I have seen is the limited numeric range of Javascript wrt 64-bit integers being one of few that has ACTUALLY surfaced. This based on my 5 years of working on one of most widely used Java JSON libraries, interacting on mailing lists. Even discussion on potential issues (such as other concerns regarding number representation) has been very limited. Actual problems that are reported for interoperability are almost all related to higher-level incompatibility: how are Dates translated into JSON (numeric timestamp or String? Which of ISO-8601 variants?); whether it is a good idea to translate simple structs into more elaborate ones with metadata and so on. But while these are real problems in context of systems that use JSON, none of these issues is part of JSON the Format specification In short, I think that these concerns are used in wrong context -- nothing within syntactic definition, or semantics of simple values JSON has, will help with these (valid) concerns. Unless there is some effort to actually quantify ACTUAL syntax-level interoperability problems encountered, it would be best to consider these alleged or potential issues. They are not at "well-known fact" level (except when used ironically to indicate that it's all hear-say & urban legens). -+ Tatu +- > peter > > > On 10/08/2013 12:21 PM, Brian Kardell wrote: > > [...] > >> >> So I guess my big question I keep asking myself is this: Despite the >> fact that it didn't involve standards bodies and committees to get out the >> door - JSON is really *really* interoperable. There are potentially some >> edge cases, but given its importance to the Web it does seem like the ECMA >> version is the most important baseline here. If we want to make >> improvements, why not just invent some other thing - not JSON... Call it >> "super json" or "phil" or - just something else...And let that something >> else attempt to address perceived problems and make some minor comments >> about the ability to parse a subset of it with the standard JSON parsers >> that conform to ECMA-404 or something and then go out there and compete and >> see if it actually does better. Maybe it will and we can all go have beers >> and laugh about it, but - maybe it won't and at least we don't have to >> break things. >> >> >> -- >> Brian Kardell :: @briankardell >> > > ______________________________**_________________ > json mailing list > json@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/json > --f46d043c08101bfcd704e8403ecb Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 12:48 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider = <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:
I had first thoug= ht that JSON was really really interoperable. =A0Then I saw all the problem= s JSON-LD had with JSON. =A0Then I looked closer and saw

Could you elaborate bit on what kinds of problems there= are?

the problems in JSON wit= h numbers, and strings, and arrays. Then I said to myself "There reall= y is no problem - although the syntax of JSON is too loose, and the descrip= tion is too loose, everyone interprets JSON as if it was transmitting ECMAS= cript values." =A0Then I realized that this is not the case, and, more= over, that even ECMAScript JSON doesn't match the intuitive description= of JSON.

So I would say that JSON is only interoperable if you don't care too mu= ch about interoperability, and you don't hit any of the really ugly cor= ner cases.
=A0
So why then is JSON so successful? =A0Well, it's easy to write, easy to= read, matches programming language data fairly closely, and either you are= both producer and consumer or you don't care that your system works co= rrectly all the time so you don't care that JSON does not support inter= operability.


I keep hearing all the c= laims of non-interoperability, but have seen barely any problems that are a= ctually on JSON data format level.
Almost only one I have seen is the li= mited numeric range of Javascript wrt 64-bit integers being one of few that= has ACTUALLY surfaced.
This based on my 5 years of working on one of most widely used J= ava JSON libraries, interacting on mailing lists.
Even discus= sion on potential issues (such as other concerns regarding number represent= ation) has been very limited.

Actual problems that are reported for interoperability= are almost all related to higher-level incompatibility: how are Dates tran= slated into JSON (numeric timestamp or String? Which of ISO-8601 variants?)= ; whether it is a good idea to translate simple structs into more elaborate= ones with metadata and so on.
But while these are real problems in context of systems that use JSON,= none of these issues is part of JSON the Format specification
In short, I think that these concerns are used in wrong context -- nothin= g within syntactic definition, or semantics of simple values JSON has, will= help with these (valid) concerns.

Unless there is some effort to actually quantify ACTUA= L syntax-level interoperability problems encountered, it would be best to c= onsider these alleged or potential issues. They are not at "well-known= fact" level (except when used ironically to indicate that it's al= l hear-say & urban legens).

-+ Tatu +-

=A0<= /div>
peter


On 10/08/2013 12:21 PM, Brian Kardell wrote:

[...]

So I guess my big question I keep asking myself is this: =A0Despite the fac= t that it didn't involve standards bodies and committees to get out the= door - JSON is really *really* interoperable. =A0There are potentially som= e edge cases, but given its importance to the Web it does seem like the ECM= A version is the most important baseline here. =A0If we want to make improv= ements, why not just invent some other thing - not JSON... Call it "su= per json" or "phil" or - just something else...And let that = something else attempt to address perceived problems and make some minor co= mments about the ability to parse a subset of it with the standard JSON par= sers that conform to ECMA-404 or something and then go out there and compet= e and see if it actually does better. =A0Maybe it will and we can all go ha= ve beers and laugh about it, but - maybe it won't and at least we don&#= 39;t have to break things.


--
Brian Kardell :: @briankardell

_______________________________________________
json mailing list
json@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json

--f46d043c08101bfcd704e8403ecb-- From tsaloranta@gmail.com Tue Oct 8 13:05:07 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC91521F9FAB for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 13:05:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.933 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.933 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, SARE_HTML_USL_OBFU=1.666] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BYegA5M0fdS5 for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 13:05:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-we0-x236.google.com (mail-we0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A53D121F9E3B for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 13:04:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-we0-f182.google.com with SMTP id t61so9236357wes.41 for ; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 13:04:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=7PV67P6+txKASEBPiN50osslm1Mu9xCicKO3srYl9/U=; b=cvy34A6Hn3k2Znqf+RRbJSsD/dHaCQvjrSHl1y3rev0cvUVjAKr1kp71XPO6KLDPsM 58nGMOPgQHZrLffnxEANdboxd6lCo76qdi800r4RUXM85KUt5ltJPQ+I4ljbhvRkGHPY 1PVO4b2H3tyTOY3skIxfPy6CUqndpoAUtf7k0XJbBM0RGKFkOpcovpjAFz4lEy0cTwZN p2TkSMXkuYUacZbAXojYEW4YwceGM/5uvz+xvUvYz/i7PhYXI2LX7lHLK5TNoytrUJgn HY+I3i0qpF9Vso6OSpI2N6MJa+KYn+eOB6UiwQZ8SwCMYyJDYik328GXlBhM2VhhFq2m yuaQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.133.202 with SMTP id pe10mr3420804wjb.46.1381262695881; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 13:04:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.42.9 with HTTP; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 13:04:55 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <525464AA.8000608@gmail.com> References: <525429ED.5000705@gmail.com> <04FC3123-33A4-40DA-AD5D-DA543435DE56@wirfs-brock.com> <20131008164219.GA16081@mercury.ccil.org> <52544E3C.7000907@gmail.com> <525464AA.8000608@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 13:04:55 -0700 Message-ID: From: Tatu Saloranta To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01228d1654617704e84048bc Cc: Carsten Bormann , JSON WG Subject: Re: [Json] FYI ECMA, W3C, IETF coordination on JSON X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 20:05:09 -0000 --089e01228d1654617704e84048bc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider < pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote: > I think that everyone agrees that JSON text is a sequence of Unicode code > points, but that's not the issue. The issue is whether JSON strings > represent sequences of Unicode characters or something else. > > The JSON syntax in ECMA-404 appears to allow "\uDEAD" as a string. What > Unicode character does this represent? > > A similar problem infects JSON numbers. There is no debate as to the > syntax of JSON numbers. However, there is very little guidance on what = a > JSON number represents. Is -0 the same as 0? Is -0.0 the same as 0? Is= 1. > **100000000000000000000000000000**00000000000000001 the same as 1.1? Is > 1E1 the same as 10? > > I thought that earlier discussions converged towards consensus that only syntactic equivalence would be defined. If so, none of those would be considered equivalent at level that this specification operates. This because binding to native types would be out of scope here. Equality question could/would be tackled at "best practices" document, or similar higher-level document. -+ Tatu +- > peter > > > On 10/08/2013 12:37 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote: > >> On Oct 8, 2013, at 20:26, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" < >> pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> The paragraph on strings, also below, ignores all the problems with >>> escaped code units that do not represent a Unicode code point. >>> >> Actually, no, this point is not ignored at all. >> >> It makes it very clear that JSON is composed of Unicode code points. >> UTF-16 only occurs once, where the twelve-character-escape for non-BMP >> code points is explained. >> So that may be one point where following ECMA-404*) might make the work >> of this WG simpler. >> >> Gr=FC=DFe, Carsten >> >> *) Great numbering :-) >> We should try to get RFC 7404 :-) >> >> > ______________________________**_________________ > json mailing list > json@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/json > --089e01228d1654617704e84048bc Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <= span dir=3D"ltr"><pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:
I think that everyone agrees that JSON text = is a sequence of Unicode code points, but that's not the issue. =A0The = issue is whether JSON strings represent sequences of Unicode characters or = something else.

The JSON syntax in ECMA-404 appears to allow "\uDEAD" as a string= . What Unicode character does this represent?

A similar problem infects JSON numbers. =A0There is no debate as to the syn= tax of JSON numbers. =A0 However, there is very little guidance on what a J= SON number represents. =A0Is -0 the same as 0? =A0Is -0.0 the same as 0? = =A0Is 1.10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 the s= ame as 1.1? =A0Is 1E1 the same as 10?


I thought that earlier d= iscussions converged towards consensus that only syntactic equivalence woul= d be defined. If so, none of those would be considered equivalent at level = that this specification operates.
This because binding to native types would be out of scope here.

Equality question could/would be tackled at "best practices&qu= ot; document, or similar higher-level document.

-+ Tatu +-
=A0
peter


On 10/08/2013 12:37 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
On Oct 8, 2013, at 20:26, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com= > wrote:

The paragraph on strings, also below, ignores all the problems with escaped= code units that do not represent a Unicode code point.
Actually, no, this point is not ignored at all.

It makes it very clear that JSON is composed of Unicode code points.
UTF-16 only occurs once, where the twelve-character-escape for non-BMP code= points is explained.
So that may be one point where following ECMA-404*) might make the work of = this WG simpler.

Gr=FC=DFe, Carsten

*) Great numbering :-)
We should try to get RFC 7404 :-)


_______________________________________________
json mailing list
json@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json

--089e01228d1654617704e84048bc-- From pfpschneider@gmail.com Tue Oct 8 13:05:12 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CF8521F93E4 for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 13:05:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.821 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.821 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.222, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 37Qc4C1GrqRy for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 13:05:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qc0-x22a.google.com (mail-qc0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::22a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6153521F9FA5 for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 13:05:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qc0-f170.google.com with SMTP id m20so6358656qcx.15 for ; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 13:05:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Z+BK5LJ120cBDgfIuUizY+G3OxukG8TcJf7fwNfkcfM=; b=bckmxvIfXrpvEPkk3b9ZkVGYv8wocnQtDLxzu4uQNr58VprRYgGaZmp80APHeX1pPR lfob8j7azGNNWBdmMbZx+edkXrCcI1oa1X1JRvmB4RutEdddxb/GAh6UYOnhe1X5wOca 3lLmnpGzFTr1h/DlkSOf46HFZ+nNQfbJA6Cd32faLDOafsj/hKijGtmScq5Zljas+f6i W5Cizp0FonNk4vqygmni4p2Bh6p27DbVAa6/hgdMjARPhGSXrSxIjvjIlhSV/TuGZMSP +FwQcg+CIbGk69aZGg9GfHAPqCiO+f0SHOLpWzK6u3AdxyElPGOwIxbmTM57Ny8+9ufm IeoA== X-Received: by 10.49.35.144 with SMTP id h16mr4769775qej.35.1381262706194; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 13:05:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (out-on-245.wireless.telus.com. [207.219.69.245]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id l2sm77496662qad.10.1969.12.31.16.00.00 (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 08 Oct 2013 13:05:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <52546563.2000506@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 13:04:51 -0700 From: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130805 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Paul Hoffman References: <525429ED.5000705@gmail.com> <04FC3123-33A4-40DA-AD5D-DA543435DE56@wirfs-brock.com> <20131008164219.GA16081@mercury.ccil.org> <52544E3C.7000907@gmail.com> <1D80C95D-7ACC-4AAC-BC5E-7AE4E2FFE650@vpnc.org> In-Reply-To: <1D80C95D-7ACC-4AAC-BC5E-7AE4E2FFE650@vpnc.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: JSON WG Subject: Re: [Json] FYI ECMA, W3C, IETF coordination on JSON X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 20:05:12 -0000 Yes, agreed. peter On 10/08/2013 12:39 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > On Oct 8, 2013, at 11:26 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > >> The paragraph on numbers, see below, seems rather dangerous, as well as being incorrect. The paragraph on strings, also below, ignores all the problems with escaped code units that do not represent a Unicode code point. > If you have issues with the spec that was produced by TC39, it would be much better if you brought it up with them directly, not here. Few TC39 members are on this list, and the ECMA procedures are really different than the IETF procedures. > > --Paul Hoffman From jorge@jorgechamorro.com Tue Oct 8 13:06:55 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4D3F21F9FC3 for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 13:06:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id T9Pp0ozWFOKY for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 13:06:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wi0-f171.google.com (mail-wi0-f171.google.com [209.85.212.171]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7787421F93E4 for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 13:06:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wi0-f171.google.com with SMTP id hm2so7207412wib.4 for ; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 13:06:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:mime-version:content-type:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to; bh=2j2pgTH8uv0P9CJ2jEZ25luil/qcGDICYLatXYnR37s=; b=I2pcjf/+VsfGlcmANyXfMmxEyOAuiNaH1BfkkPKhMVZxlv0EWRUxxG26bq14X7kjDw KDIBQxMCDqqK0jAXHCPhkt9xD+Bv1hAz1uU2q9TK3g6WrrlML7bWTg8bWDfzKnv2zEwF 4n40NKRMFtXKzK+J4TGKdI5LU7lx0jaaruQyrToutJubyzBA8NDzDQ4GDmryvxRlon0H YknuiQi1c+amODcH2bSmp4ihFVKbJBk2TJnCNEJo3oqU0AkTB3d6Mdx1cP+rR6YW2ArP 8Lbah33jGWhBk1x6kx5do6u68283wmRZmR/9PbGUoyfK9yoayRvqIRXcbknffzA08Lpw JPhg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlgdUMFuBzt1ctAS64K67dMTp3+VZH/eo93RJXq0HffIsUAj0uhCloZp4GmIgd1/AeSyB/H X-Received: by 10.180.206.180 with SMTP id lp20mr25088115wic.48.1381262785034; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 13:06:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.10.50] (243.Red-83-49-8.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net. [83.49.8.243]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id d11sm8340970wic.4.1969.12.31.16.00.00 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 08 Oct 2013 13:06:24 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Jorge Chamorro In-Reply-To: <5254599C.6090604@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 22:06:21 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <338C416F-FFFF-4282-A657-612762C56A24@jorgechamorro.com> References: <525429ED.5000705@gmail.com> <04FC3123-33A4-40DA-AD5D-DA543435DE56@wirfs-brock.com> <20131008164219.GA16081@mercury.ccil.org> <52544E3C.7000907@gmail.com> <3BDEC79B-6B72-4282-955A-D31E156DB29F@jorgechamorro.com> <5254599C.6090604@gmail.com> To: Peter F. Patel-Schneider X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085) Cc: Allen Wirfs-Brock , John Cowan , Larry Masinter , Tim Bray , JSON WG , "www-tag@w3.org" Subject: Re: [Json] FYI ECMA, W3C, IETF coordination on JSON X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 20:06:56 -0000 On 08/10/2013, at 21:14, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote > On 10/08/2013 11:43 AM, Jorge Chamorro wrote: >> On 08/10/2013, at 20:26, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >>=20 >>> The paragraph on numbers, see below, seems rather dangerous, as well = as being incorrect. >> Is it? Why? >>=20 > Well, for starters, interchanging non-integers can lead to loss of = precision, which can be dangerous. Further, interchanging numbers = without some notion of the limits of the receiver is also dangerous. >=20 > Second, JSON does not only use sequences of digits to represent = numbers, and there are many JSON numbers that cannot be represented as a = sequence of base-ten digits. >=20 > Third, there are many numbers that humans interchange that cannot be = represented as finite sequences of digits, even if you allow also a = decimal point and a negative sign, for example 1/7, pi, and the square = root of two. (Perhaps the wording in the introduction is meant to allow = infinite sequences of digits, but then using JSON for interchange is a = bit difficult.) My understanding is that limiting the representation of = numbers to something like the JSON syntax is more of a computer thing = than a human thing. Ok, look: he's done -and very well- what he said should be done: Begin forwarded message: > From: Douglas Crockford > Date: 13 de junio de 2013 17:50:33 GMT+02:00 > To: "json@ietf.org" > Subject: [Json] Two Documents > content-type: text/plain; charset=3D"us-ascii"; Format=3D"flowed" >=20 > The confusion and controversy around this work is due to a mistake = that I > made in RFC 4627. The purpose of the RFC, which is clearly indicated > in the title, was to establish a MIME type. I also gave a description = of > the JSON Data Interchange Format. My mistake was in conflating the = two, > putting details about the MIME type into the description of the = format. My > intention was to add clarity. That obviously was not the result. >=20 > JSON is just a format. It describes a syntax of brackets and commas = that > is useful in many contexts, profiles, and applications. JSON is = agnostic > about all of that stuff. JSON shouldn't even care about character = encoding. > Its only dependence on Unicode in the hex numbers used in the \u = notation. > JSON can be encoded in ASCII or EBCDIC or even Hollerith codes. JSON = can > be used in contexts where there is no character encoding at all, such = as > paper documents and marble monuments. >=20 > There are uses of JSON however in which such choices matter, and where > behavior needs to be attached to or derived from the syntax. That is > important stuff, and it belongs in different documents. Such documents > will place necessary restrictions on JSON's potential. No such = document > can fit all applications, which causes much of the controversy we've = seen > here. One size cannot fit all. JSON the format is universal. But real > applications require reasonable restrictions. >=20 > So we should be working on at least two documents, which is something = we have > discussed earlier. The first is The JSON Data Interchange Format, = which is > a simple grammar. The second is a best practices document, which = recommends > specific conventions of usage. >=20 > _______________________________________________ > json mailing list > json@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json ECMA-404 is simple, complete, easy to read and extremely clear: = excellent. --=20 ( Jorge )();= From bkardell@gmail.com Tue Oct 8 13:10:11 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08C4F21F8A7B for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 13:10:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id z9HK6jfn5Xgl for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 13:10:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lb0-x231.google.com (mail-lb0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::231]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F131821F8A67 for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 13:10:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lb0-f177.google.com with SMTP id w7so7140397lbi.8 for ; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 13:10:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=kDsR7mxEPVSpRg+hdU2wE0fI36SAeTRF25MUX9ToyIc=; b=pRU7VwyGLGgxIpUYBg2pbORF1eHqVw4O/pnyoc4djWEp/KKCjNcGSW1FGXhzMuDe1q YN1YutkuRIYSBCKWPWIZvZ1Pdx1GlS+0i2ZkBbTV4PXZ/EowhSkZchZEryRLsPF9NR6l BF+4Ddj52TjyRHPm9j5z1B9/ApVEuMEXIAiqKr790fOszBdcMY8PqHedVfky1eE2DVjX LJPhkG5NaO2gmZX/fuio2sDODZ2WSjLpBA+rQkoDamn8rQHguw5eC+E7I3LOuH9OzJ7+ wrYk2yboL5NcgyrXylDE73mQZilzuM/gaLWdgQQjRwY6zAgHDIE37XKhZf6x9xdvAAgN pxyw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.2.233 with SMTP id 9mr2812932lax.38.1381263006850; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 13:10:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.173.133 with HTTP; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 13:10:06 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5254619E.7040407@gmail.com> References: <525429ED.5000705@gmail.com> <04FC3123-33A4-40DA-AD5D-DA543435DE56@wirfs-brock.com> <20131008164219.GA16081@mercury.ccil.org> <52544E3C.7000907@gmail.com> <525455D4.8090105@gmail.com> <5254619E.7040407@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 13:10:06 -0700 Message-ID: From: Brian Kardell To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0112c518dd649b04e8405a41 Cc: Allen Wirfs-Brock , John Cowan , Larry Masinter , Tim Bray , JSON WG , "www-tag@w3.org" Subject: Re: [Json] FYI ECMA, W3C, IETF coordination on JSON X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 20:10:11 -0000 --089e0112c518dd649b04e8405a41 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Oct 8, 2013 3:48 PM, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" wrote: > > I had first thought that JSON was really really interoperable. Then I saw all the problems JSON-LD had with JSON. Then I looked closer and saw the problems in JSON with numbers, and strings, and arrays. Then I said to myself "There really is no problem - although the syntax of JSON is too loose, and the description is too loose, everyone interprets JSON as if it was transmitting ECMAScript values." Then I realized that this is not the case, and, moreover, that even ECMAScript JSON doesn't match the intuitive description of JSON. > > So I would say that JSON is only interoperable if you don't care too much about interoperability, and you don't hit any of the really ugly corner cases. > > So why then is JSON so successful? Well, it's easy to write, easy to read, matches programming language data fairly closely, and either you are both producer and consumer or you don't care that your system works correctly all the time so you don't care that JSON does not support interoperability. > And I would simply say "that is an over-statement". Of course the world cares about interoperability and JSON is the lingua franca of data that makes the Web go round every single day. Problems and opinions are not necessarily the same thing "JSON should specify X but doesn't" (where X is something about dates or numbers or schema validation) doesn't mean we don't make it actually work in the real world to do an astonishing number of real things. Breaking things is really where I would draw the line WRT the language itself personally - parsers just *have* to be able parse what they did before, pretty much the way they did before or you risk making things measurably *less* interoperable in the vast majority of cases in the name of making it more so. There is absolutely nothing, and I mean *nothing* from being something a lot *like* JSON, even a superset capable of parsing the basic subset of today's JSON the same way and turning it into a forward/competitive move. It can be as opinionated as you/we want - and there is literally no problem. --089e0112c518dd649b04e8405a41 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Oct 8, 2013 3:48 PM, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I had first thought that JSON was really really interoperable. =A0Then= I saw all the problems JSON-LD had with JSON. =A0Then I looked closer and = saw the problems in JSON with numbers, and strings, and arrays. Then I said= to myself "There really is no problem - although the syntax of JSON i= s too loose, and the description is too loose, everyone interprets JSON as = if it was transmitting ECMAScript values." =A0Then I realized that thi= s is not the case, and, moreover, that even ECMAScript JSON doesn't mat= ch the intuitive description of JSON.
>
> So I would say that JSON is only interoperable if you don't care t= oo much about interoperability, and you don't hit any of the really ugl= y corner cases.
>

> So why then is JSON so successful? =A0Well, it's ea= sy to write, easy to read, matches programming language data fairly closely= , and either you are both producer and consumer or you don't care that = your system works correctly all the time so you don't care that JSON do= es not support interoperability.
>


And I would simply say "that is an over-stat= ement". =A0Of course the world cares about interoperability and JSON i= s the lingua franca of data that makes the Web go round every single day. = =A0Problems and opinions are not necessarily the same thing "JSON shou= ld specify X but doesn't" (where X is something about dates or num= bers or schema validation) doesn't mean we don't make it actually w= ork in the real world to do an astonishing number of real things. =A0Breaki= ng things is really where I would draw the line WRT the language itself per= sonally - parsers just *have* to be able parse what they did before, pretty= much the way they did before or you risk making things measurably *less* i= nteroperable in the vast majority of cases in the name of making it more so= .

There is absolutely nothing, and I mean *nothing* from being something a= lot *like* JSON, even a superset capable of parsing the basic subset of to= day's JSON the same way and turning it into a forward/competitive move.= =A0It can be as opinionated as you/we want - and there is literally no pro= blem. =A0




--089e0112c518dd649b04e8405a41-- From tbray@textuality.com Tue Oct 8 13:10:41 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63BA021F9FB6 for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 13:10:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.082 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.082 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.561, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FRT_ADOBE2=2.455, GB_I_INVITATION=-2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OgSbemFfd1cU for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 13:10:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vc0-f177.google.com (mail-vc0-f177.google.com [209.85.220.177]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C60DD21F9FF1 for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 13:10:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vc0-f177.google.com with SMTP id hv10so3916127vcb.8 for ; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 13:10:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=iR/gzo4gp4goWIHEHONw5Dl1j6Kt81RlttQdt0MZcPI=; b=KOXtI0aAdOs0XH4JOgGD9RMi3B4xQIXfuweJqt1xQimRv09e6hKfGjHNsBejNKi8uN Bg53qaItdrr3dDu4qJMCftSIJ41slsOKYQrilM18VgNx4vyHRPU4b/QxVivUCH0BfAli ms/bw4UJYCh9HlZvZ92GgH+x7ImrmRdhcBA99+F1NG+oVZGBAWt0Nusx2a6jKh7Bim6q NCXG6e62sAwCU6yUNxO6A4xaUiIZ1zmp2QCKbpt+vWdjw8mN15LVM9F33fmPJ+tnaZrW CzyUNTf3wNoSW0EOblhchThq+KYGGIIMOY9zhIwakI5WyDQvMZA7bZTz50U3aiQltDuG FK8Q== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkDw8ujbNi0XDEFBC4SteIsNmJHD/T5XfUmg01iN9Y/3K5hnOsGSHyje+kP8y1pET1QOsO2 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.52.33.44 with SMTP id o12mr2019541vdi.7.1381263034251; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 13:10:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.174.197 with HTTP; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 13:10:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [96.49.81.176] In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 13:10:34 -0700 Message-ID: From: Tim Bray To: "Appelquist Daniel (UK)" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf3079b5f27f902504e8405c75 Cc: Larry Masinter , "doug@crockford.com" , "www-tag@w3.org" , JSON WG Subject: Re: [Json] FYI ECMA, W3C, IETF coordination on JSON X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 20:10:41 -0000 --20cf3079b5f27f902504e8405c75 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks for the invitation, but I think that you need one of our co-chairs there so that we have an authoritative voice to describe what the IETF WG is mandated to do. On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Appelquist Daniel (UK) < Daniel.Appelquist@telefonica.com> wrote: > Hi folks - > > On this topic, I will note that I took an action at last week's TAG f2f > (http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/836) to invite Tim Bray > and Doug Crockford to attend a future TAG call to discuss the situation - > which I had not yet put into action, but which which was intended to be a > bit of outreach and fact finding on this topic. > > So (adding Doug to the to: list) would you be able / interested to join a > discussion at one of our future TAG calls on this topic? If so, I sugges= t > we devote a whole call to this topic just to put it to bed. Our regular > calls are on Thursdays at 18:00 UK / 13:00 US Eastern / 10:00 US Pacific. > > East Side / West Side / Peace. > > Dan Appelquist > W3C TAG Co-Chair > > > > From: Tim Bray > Date: Tuesday, 8 October 2013 16:31 > >Oh joy, dueling specs. That=E2=80=99s so 1999. > > > >On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 7:47 AM, Larry Masinter > wrote: > > > >IETF JSON members might want to review > > > >http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2013/10/02-minutes.html#item03 > > > >a report and discussion of (some members of) TC39 and the W3C TAG on the > >IETF activities around JSON. > >_______________________________________________ > >json mailing list > >json@ietf.org > >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json > > --20cf3079b5f27f902504e8405c75 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thanks for the invitation, but I think that you need one o= f our co-chairs there so that we have an authoritative voice to describe wh= at the IETF WG is mandated to do.

<= br>
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Appelquist Dani= el (UK) <Daniel.Appelquist@telefonica.com> wr= ote:
Hi folks -

On this topic, I will note that I took an action at last week's TAG f2f=
(http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/836) to invite Ti= m Bray
and Doug Crockford to attend a future TAG call to discuss the situation - which I had not yet put into action, but which which was intended to be a bit of outreach and fact finding on this topic.

So (adding Doug to the to: list) would you be able / interested to join a discussion at one of our future TAG calls on this topic? =C2=A0If so, I sug= gest
we devote a whole call to this topic just to put it to bed. =C2=A0Our regul= ar
calls are on Thursdays at 18:00 UK / 13:00 US Eastern / 10:00 US Pacific.
East Side / West Side / Peace.

Dan Appelquist
W3C TAG Co-Chair



From: =C2=A0Tim Bray <tbray@text= uality.com>
Date: =C2=A0Tuesday, 8 October 2013 16:31
>Oh joy, dueling specs. =C2=A0Th= at=E2=80=99s so 1999.
>
>On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 7:47 AM, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>IETF JSON members might want to review
>
>http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2013/10/02-minutes.html#item03<= /a>
>
>a report and discussion of (some members of) TC39 and the W3C TAG on th= e
>IETF activities around JSON.
>_______________________________________________
>json mailing list
>json@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json


--20cf3079b5f27f902504e8405c75-- From internet-drafts@ietf.org Tue Oct 8 16:48:14 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FEFC11E8102; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 16:48:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.571 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.571 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.029, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nGghMmhvFHZq; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 16:48:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEAD711E810E; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 16:48:10 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.80.p1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20131008234810.28645.8207.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 16:48:10 -0700 Cc: json@ietf.org Subject: [Json] I-D Action: draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-05.txt X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 23:48:14 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the JavaScript Object Notation Working Group = of the IETF. Title : The JSON Data Interchange Format Author(s) : Tim Bray Filename : draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-05.txt Pages : 15 Date : 2013-10-08 Abstract: JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) is a lightweight, text-based, language-independent data interchange format. It was derived from the ECMAScript Programming Language Standard. JSON defines a small set of formatting rules for the portable representation of structured data. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-05 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-05 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From tbray@textuality.com Tue Oct 8 16:50:17 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2A2721F9CDF for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 16:50:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.169 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.169 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.193, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LJRl8ztpUHPl for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 16:50:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vb0-f47.google.com (mail-vb0-f47.google.com [209.85.212.47]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B3C921F99FB for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 16:50:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vb0-f47.google.com with SMTP id h10so22445vbh.20 for ; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 16:50:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=SKcvRlwUYTq53h+ea9P5w9qjy6FScz7L35ZSdXNQgOk=; b=SvnKs3oEllgyDrIbFOA2+EMj7zxDtRgh+q2KuCUVGwwtj1VJZsf0qxZJ0WNYyIZzAZ Q6J+GDG3kgZyPwLa0NT0t5qBc4pQBWUbUfPMBIeHag7CgHAmBGEdHaH8ArAs3rv4StCB FT5HoXPqkagTiBv8+385gfKO4r7r7p0fFcyPGmZIXFZasZnKabSbIwsscS+o6g+mj/4A uer6bJaRK2yt6XLZlbVYhl6ftgq8UTSs2wUv4ah3DvdkrmXv4rCx7snwnERQQ0B/w9TQ BhlHD8bb5RRQEXCzEnnMe128W+Vz8XiJv2oo5DG2LStsXPr47PFLkzyHpj1nq1lgBdB9 3m3g== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnE5MR0x2xy23z/sYCkpCT+OHBXk6ylEn5lm1afnXa/PtcOppWIxe5WnnrnOxuRihpP1UI3 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.221.27.73 with SMTP id rp9mr3094823vcb.29.1381276212070; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 16:50:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.174.197 with HTTP; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 16:50:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [96.49.81.176] In-Reply-To: <20131008234810.28645.8207.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> References: <20131008234810.28645.8207.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 16:50:12 -0700 Message-ID: From: Tim Bray To: "json@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11339706f51ad104e8436d64 Subject: Re: [Json] I-D Action: draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-05.txt X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 23:50:18 -0000 --001a11339706f51ad104e8436d64 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Real HTML at https://www.tbray.org/tmp/draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-05.html On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 4:48 PM, wrote: > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > This draft is a work item of the JavaScript Object Notation Working Group > of the IETF. > > Title : The JSON Data Interchange Format > Author(s) : Tim Bray > Filename : draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-05.txt > Pages : 15 > Date : 2013-10-08 > > Abstract: > JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) is a lightweight, text-based, > language-independent data interchange format. It was derived from > the ECMAScript Programming Language Standard. JSON defines a small > set of formatting rules for the portable representation of structured > data. > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis > > There's also a htmlized version available at: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-05 > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-05 > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of > submission > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > _______________________________________________ > json mailing list > json@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json > --001a11339706f51ad104e8436d64 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 4:48 PM, <internet-drafts@ietf.org><= /span> wrote:

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies.
=C2=A0This draft is a work item of the JavaScript Object Notation Working G= roup of the IETF.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Title =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 : The = JSON Data Interchange Format
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Author(s) =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 : Tim Bray
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Filename =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0: draft-iet= f-json-rfc4627bis-05.txt
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Pages =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 : 15 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Date =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0:= 2013-10-08

Abstract:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) is a lightweight, text-based= ,
=C2=A0 =C2=A0language-independent data interchange format. =C2=A0It was der= ived from
=C2=A0 =C2=A0the ECMAScript Programming Language Standard. =C2=A0JSON defin= es a small
=C2=A0 =C2=A0set of formatting rules for the portable representation of str= uctured
=C2=A0 =C2=A0data.


The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis<= /a>

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-05
A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-json-rfc4= 627bis-05


Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submissio= n
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp= .ietf.org/internet-drafts/

_______________________________________________
json mailing list
json@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json

--001a11339706f51ad104e8436d64-- From James.H.Manger@team.telstra.com Tue Oct 8 17:39:09 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C26AE21F9FA4 for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 17:39:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.518 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.518 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.383, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_AU=0.377, HOST_EQ_AU=0.327, RELAY_IS_203=0.994] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id n4m5khzu9Vlm for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 17:39:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ipxbvo.tcif.telstra.com.au (ipxbvo.tcif.telstra.com.au [203.35.135.204]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CB0221F9F34 for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 17:38:54 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.90,1059,1371045600"; d="scan'208";a="164817951" Received: from unknown (HELO ipcavi.tcif.telstra.com.au) ([10.97.217.200]) by ipobvi.tcif.telstra.com.au with ESMTP; 09 Oct 2013 11:38:54 +1100 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,7222"; a="220642745" Received: from wsmsg3756.srv.dir.telstra.com ([172.49.40.84]) by ipcavi.tcif.telstra.com.au with ESMTP; 09 Oct 2013 11:38:54 +1100 Received: from WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com ([172.49.40.159]) by wsmsg3756.srv.dir.telstra.com ([172.49.40.84]) with mapi; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 11:38:53 +1100 From: "Manger, James H" To: Tim Bray , "json@ietf.org" Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 11:38:52 +1100 Thread-Topic: [Json] I-D Action: draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-05.txt Thread-Index: Ac7EgSg0lXyjIjGyRYShoQEaDZApTAAARwNA Message-ID: <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E11531C3C187@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com> References: <20131008234810.28645.8207.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US, en-AU Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US, en-AU Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Json] I-D Action: draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-05.txt X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 00:39:09 -0000 PiBSZWFsIEhUTUwgYXQgaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cudGJyYXkub3JnL3RtcC9kcmFmdC1pZXRmLWpzb24t cmZjNDYyN2Jpcy0wNS5odG1sDQoNCkVkaXRvcmlhbDoNCiDigJxmb3IgZXhhbXBsZSwgIkhlbGxv IHdvcmxkISIsICI0MiIsIGFuZCAidHJ1ZSIgd291bGQgYWxsIGJlIHZhbGlkIEpTT04gdGV4dHMg aW4gdGhlIEVDTUFTY3JpcHQgNS4xIGNvbnRleHQu4oCdDQoNClRoaXMgaXMgbm90IHF1aXRlIHBy ZWNpc2UgYXMgdGhlIGRvdWJsZS1xdW90ZXMgYXJlIHBhcnQgb2YgdGhlIEpTT04gdGV4dCBmb3Ig dGhlIHN0cmluZyBleGFtcGxlLCBidXQgbm90IGZvciB0aGUgbnVtYmVyIGFuZCBCb29sZWFuIGV4 YW1wbGVzLiBQZXJoYXBzIHNheToNCiANCiAgZm9yIGV4YW1wbGUsIGVhY2ggb2YgdGhlIGZvbGxv d2luZyAzIGxpbmVzIHdvdWxkIGJlIGEgdmFsaWQgSlNPTiB0ZXh0DQogIGluIHRoZSBFQ01BU2Ny aXB0IDUuMSBjb250ZXh0Og0KIA0KICAiSGVsbG8gd29ybGQhIg0KICA0Mg0KICB0cnVlIA0KDQoN Cg0KQnV0IHRoZSBwdWJsaWNhdGlvbiBvZiBFQ01BLTQwNCBtZWFucyB3ZSBzaG91bGQgcmFkaWNh bGx5IGNoYW5nZSA0NjI3YmlzLg0KTGV0cyBkbyB3aGF0IEVDTUEtNDA0ICJJbnRyb2R1Y3Rpb24i IHN1Z2dlc3RzIG90aGVyIHN0YW5kYXJkcyBkbzoNCg0KICBJdCBpcyBleHBlY3RlZCB0aGF0IG90 aGVyIHN0YW5kYXJkcyB3aWxsIHJlZmVyIHRvIHRoaXMgb25lLCBzdHJpY3RseQ0KICBhZGhlcmlu ZyB0byB0aGUgSlNPTiB0ZXh0IGZvcm1hdCwgd2hpbGUgaW1wb3NpbmcgcmVzdHJpY3Rpb25zIG9u IHZhcmlvdXMNCiAgZW5jb2RpbmcgZGV0YWlscy4gU3VjaCBzdGFuZGFyZHMgbWF5IHJlcXVpcmUg c3BlY2lmaWMgYmVoYXZpb3Vycy4gSlNPTiANCiAgaXRzZWxmIHNwZWNpZmllcyBubyBiZWhhdmlv dXIuIA0KDQpMZXRzIHJlZmVyZW5jZSBFQ01BLTQwNCAtLSBub3QgcmVwZWF0aW5nIGFueSBvZiB0 aGUgc3ludGF4Lg0KRGVmaW5lIHRoZSBtZWRpYSB0eXBlLg0KRGlzY3VzcyB0aGUgaW50ZXJvcCBp c3N1ZXMgd2l0aCBzdXJyb2dhdGVzLCBodWdlIGludGVnZXJzLCBkZWNpbWFsIGZsb2F0cywgZHVw bGljYXRlIG5hbWVzLCBjb21tZW50cywgZW5jb2RpbmdzLg0KUGVyaGFwcyBkZWZpbmUgdGVybXMg c3VjaCBhcyAid2ViLXNhZmUgSlNPTiIgKGZvciBhIHN1YnNldCBvZiBKU09OKSBhbmQgIndlYi1z YWZlIEpTT04gcGFyc2VyIiAoZm9yIHNwZWNpZmljIHBhcnNlciBiZWhhdmlvdXIpIHRoYXQgb3Ro ZXIgc3BlY3MgdXNpbmcgSlNPTiBjYW4gcmVmZXIgdG8uDQoNCkkgZ3Vlc3MgdGhpcyBpcyBjbG9z ZSB0byBUaW3igJlzICJJbnRlcm5ldCBKU09OIiBvciAiSS1KU09OIiBwcm9wb3NhbC4NCkl0IGlz IHRpbWUgdG8gZHJvcCB0aGUgbWluaW1hbCA0NjI3IHVwZGF0ZS4NCg0KLS0NCkphbWVzIE1hbmdl cg0KDQo= From masinter@adobe.com Wed Oct 9 03:14:06 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2591321F9DC7 for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 03:14:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.449 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SvWS0065Iu3N for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 03:14:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod6og120.obsmtp.com (exprod6og120.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35CB721F9DB0 for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 03:13:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from outbound-smtp-1.corp.adobe.com ([192.150.11.134]) by exprod6ob120.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUlUsZTiU4e3Vs+oTAG/ua4gAtheWOP/w@postini.com; Wed, 09 Oct 2013 03:14:00 PDT Received: from inner-relay-2.corp.adobe.com ([153.32.1.52]) by outbound-smtp-1.corp.adobe.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id r99AAIiH009471; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 03:10:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nacas02.corp.adobe.com (nacas02.corp.adobe.com [10.8.189.100]) by inner-relay-2.corp.adobe.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id r99ADuOU002064; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 03:13:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com ([10.8.189.95]) by nacas02.corp.adobe.com ([10.8.189.100]) with mapi; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 03:13:56 -0700 From: Larry Masinter To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" , Paul Hoffman Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 03:13:54 -0700 Thread-Topic: [Json] FYI ECMA, W3C, IETF coordination on JSON Thread-Index: Ac7EYbX5ciC3HMaMTzCF/zcovPNxPwAcwCLw Message-ID: References: <525429ED.5000705@gmail.com> <04FC3123-33A4-40DA-AD5D-DA543435DE56@wirfs-brock.com> <20131008164219.GA16081@mercury.ccil.org> <52544E3C.7000907@gmail.com> <1D80C95D-7ACC-4AAC-BC5E-7AE4E2FFE650@vpnc.org> <52546563.2000506@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <52546563.2000506@gmail.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: JSON WG Subject: Re: [Json] FYI ECMA, W3C, IETF coordination on JSON X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 10:14:06 -0000 > If you have issues with the spec that was produced by TC39, it would be = much > better if you brought it up with them directly, not here. If, as has been suggested, 4627bis were to normatively reference ECMA-404, Then, the suitability of ECMA-404, and errors and lacunae of it, should be discussed *here*. The only reason pushing to TC39 any discussions of IETF participants' difficulties would be if there were an explicit plan to update ECMA-404 and make 4627bis normatively reference that update. Larry -- http://larry.masinter.net From derhoermi@gmx.net Wed Oct 9 03:21:12 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFF7711E8162 for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 03:21:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.732 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.732 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.867, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hDzYdyvd+P-H for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 03:21:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.20]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2DC111E8175 for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 03:21:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from netb.Speedport_W_700V ([91.35.20.241]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx102) with ESMTPA (Nemesis) id 0LcVOE-1WBOeJ04N4-00jq9U for ; Wed, 09 Oct 2013 12:21:02 +0200 From: Bjoern Hoehrmann To: Allen Wirfs-Brock Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 12:21:01 +0200 Message-ID: <1kaa59p13hgvcnnsegegmpmme31e4k7qi3@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de> References: <525429ED.5000705@gmail.com> <04FC3123-33A4-40DA-AD5D-DA543435DE56@wirfs-brock.com> <525434D5.6070409@gmail.com> <87FFB7EC-C0D3-4269-82AA-1D73E47A00FF@wirfs-brock.com> In-Reply-To: <87FFB7EC-C0D3-4269-82AA-1D73E47A00FF@wirfs-brock.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 3.3/32.846 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:yW2XvBKc+h4B955f878ccGudQrECZD0lPn0/FVnKhq/MLXDEgZT 2rrzt4tfFguBgmIYDz9Nt0upOm9mG0FVEDWXz3GzOj+PJTWOenbmlWwEqzfS1v+KLPJUaCV L5YeQ9usSxii8LMgmtu/pYcdxkGiFOxDbRGNInGmIp2FAV5foMfUWpCfMVjnQtiZJ2qRFPg 8J5dQ49AbG4RQ6xglEjBQ== Cc: es-discuss@mozilla.org, "www-tag@w3.org" , JSON WG Subject: Re: [Json] FYI ECMA, W3C, IETF coordination on JSON X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 10:21:12 -0000 * Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote: >As far as far as I know, nobody has suggested that TC39 should issues a >standard relating to this encoding level or concerning the JSON MIME >type. This seems like an appropriate subject area for the IETF. Per http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/json/current/msg00267.html ECMA "would like to jointly publish" the document the IETF JSON WG is making, and the IETF JSON WG is explicitly chartered towards that end, quoting : The resulting document will be jointly published as an RFC and by ECMA. ECMA participants will be participating in the working group editing through the normal process of working group participation. The responsible AD will coordinate the approval process with ECMA so that the versions of the document that are approved by each body are the same. -- Bjrn Hhrmann mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899 Dagebll PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 http://www.websitedev.de/ From tbray@textuality.com Wed Oct 9 08:05:54 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E7E421F91F2 for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 08:05:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.731 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.731 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.245, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Nw0-k4o71dYr for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 08:05:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vb0-f42.google.com (mail-vb0-f42.google.com [209.85.212.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FB4621F8FD2 for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 08:05:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vb0-f42.google.com with SMTP id e12so610532vbg.1 for ; Wed, 09 Oct 2013 08:05:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=cCIkS7UMzOrLwsSK5Jbrq/kcm2DPWNqe0IvoDXLJVqQ=; b=bVsQvgbLA3ehEQHY5q92JBYT8+EryCdK86UT/mjvDrI6F4l8im8SaZzw4vfWnY6OWM cl7agtEXmq4JkU5tnuYowOmmmCh0tqobJmm8isg2MIy8RF3caFojslGnBG98D5h44zOz 2c6JNvyxcUtoBvAbFeYGSWrq7qfRL6DCXm1dNY5Ldi4noB6nI8vBm408W3QlsaB9mqBh UqRSV9oLxgPocsCGuTRVPtNQmLHm1Cx2Zmkn0BvKE2zIx2Nn684QsYT7latAN1xe/gWt KQZjhl8GfPqesp85/Azg7GIxZlsCjtjdWptIwXZ3huPIQBrlixIqdqNsn4aOpaOz4mjh Gy3w== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnj7i+OdoLi/6zOSPZinSA60icWyZtFtCHrohbE5ep+BZokCL0f7Mt/d1px4rAXlA/lYmUo MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.221.51.206 with SMTP id vj14mr6006645vcb.17.1381331140510; Wed, 09 Oct 2013 08:05:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.174.197 with HTTP; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 08:05:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [24.84.235.32] In-Reply-To: <1kaa59p13hgvcnnsegegmpmme31e4k7qi3@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de> References: <525429ED.5000705@gmail.com> <04FC3123-33A4-40DA-AD5D-DA543435DE56@wirfs-brock.com> <525434D5.6070409@gmail.com> <87FFB7EC-C0D3-4269-82AA-1D73E47A00FF@wirfs-brock.com> <1kaa59p13hgvcnnsegegmpmme31e4k7qi3@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de> Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 08:05:40 -0700 Message-ID: From: Tim Bray To: Bjoern Hoehrmann Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11332252f2c56704e8503793 Cc: Allen Wirfs-Brock , JSON WG , "www-tag@w3.org" , es-discuss@mozilla.org Subject: Re: [Json] FYI ECMA, W3C, IETF coordination on JSON X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 15:05:54 -0000 --001a11332252f2c56704e8503793 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 3:21 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > The resulting document will be jointly published as an RFC and by > ECMA. ECMA participants will be participating in the working group > editing through the normal process of working group participation. > The responsible AD will coordinate the approval process with ECMA > so that the versions of the document that are approved by each body > are the same. > Given that empirically, none of this happened, I suppose this paragraph is no longer operative. -T > -- > Bj=C3=B6rn H=C3=B6hrmann =C2=B7 mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de =C2=B7 http://= bjoern.hoehrmann.de > Am Badedeich 7 =C2=B7 Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 =C2=B7 http://www.bjoern= sworld.de > 25899 Dageb=C3=BCll =C2=B7 PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 =C2=B7 http://www.w= ebsitedev.de/ > _______________________________________________ > json mailing list > json@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json > --001a11332252f2c56704e8503793 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 3:21 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoer= mi@gmx.net> wrote:
=C2=A0 The resulting document will be jointl= y published as an RFC and by
=C2=A0 ECMA. ECMA participants will be participating in the working group =C2=A0 editing through the normal process of working group participation. =C2=A0 The responsible AD will coordinate the approval process with ECMA =C2=A0 so that the versions of the document that are approved by each body<= br> =C2=A0 are the same.

Given that empiric= ally, none of this happened, I suppose this paragraph is no longer operativ= e.=C2=A0 -T

=C2=A0
--
Bj=C3=B6rn H=C3=B6hrmann =C2=B7 mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de =C2=B7 http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 =C2=B7 Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 =C2=B7 http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dageb=C3=BCll =C2=B7 PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 =C2=B7 http://www.websitedev.de/
_____________________= __________________________
json mailing list
json@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json

--001a11332252f2c56704e8503793-- From paul.hoffman@vpnc.org Wed Oct 9 13:26:26 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D022121E81B9 for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 13:26:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CVR6otoGzyaT for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 13:26:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25DFB21E81B6 for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 13:26:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.20.30.90] (50-1-98-185.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.1.98.185]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id r99KQNd8034768 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 9 Oct 2013 13:26:24 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: hoffman.proper.com: Host 50-1-98-185.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.1.98.185] claimed to be [10.20.30.90] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) From: Paul Hoffman In-Reply-To: <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E11531C3C187@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com> Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 13:26:23 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <20131008234810.28645.8207.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E11531C3C187@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com> To: "Manger, James H" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) Cc: json@ietf.org Subject: [Json] Radically changing 4627bis X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 20:26:27 -0000 On Oct 8, 2013, at 5:38 PM, "Manger, James H" = wrote: > But the publication of ECMA-404 means we should radically change = 4627bis. > Lets do what ECMA-404 "Introduction" suggests other standards do: >=20 > It is expected that other standards will refer to this one, strictly > adhering to the JSON text format, while imposing restrictions on = various > encoding details. Such standards may require specific behaviours. = JSON=20 > itself specifies no behaviour.=20 >=20 > Lets reference ECMA-404 -- not repeating any of the syntax. > Define the media type. > Discuss the interop issues with surrogates, huge integers, decimal = floats, duplicate names, comments, encodings. > Perhaps define terms such as "web-safe JSON" (for a subset of JSON) = and "web-safe JSON parser" (for specific parser behaviour) that other = specs using JSON can refer to. >=20 > I guess this is close to Tim=92s "Internet JSON" or "I-JSON" proposal. > It is time to drop the minimal 4627 update. A strong -1 on ripping out our syntax and pointing to ECMA-404. Our = syntax matches their syntax, so there is not a conflict issue. ECMA-404 = was supposed to be syntax-only, but they included semantics about = Unicode (characters vs. code points) that were important enough to this = WG to generate hundreds of messages on our mailing list. If we point to = ECMA-404 for the syntax only, and add in our semantics on = interoperability, there will then be a conflict that will have a = negative effect on developers who are trying to create interoperable = implementations. --Paul Hoffman= From masinter@adobe.com Wed Oct 9 15:24:04 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4091B21E8227 for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 15:24:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.499 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SYClPV78WnFS for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 15:23:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod6og126.obsmtp.com (exprod6og126.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1CF621E8242 for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 15:23:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from outbound-smtp-1.corp.adobe.com ([192.150.11.134]) by exprod6ob126.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUlXXVjWx4nUnj9jrOAxxzL2Lm3wwfNGL@postini.com; Wed, 09 Oct 2013 15:23:28 PDT Received: from inner-relay-1.corp.adobe.com ([153.32.1.51]) by outbound-smtp-1.corp.adobe.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id r99MJdiH009416; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 15:19:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SJ1SWM219.corp.adobe.com (sj1swm219.corp.adobe.com [10.5.77.61]) by inner-relay-1.corp.adobe.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id r99MNH6A026222; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 15:23:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com ([10.8.189.95]) by SJ1SWM219.corp.adobe.com ([fe80::d55c:7209:7a34:fcf7%11]) with mapi; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 15:23:17 -0700 From: Larry Masinter To: Paul Hoffman , "Manger, James H" Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 15:23:15 -0700 Thread-Topic: [Json] Radically changing 4627bis Thread-Index: Ac7FLdiB+9AwKoe/QsyesFQBuv1TnwAD7a0A Message-ID: References: <20131008234810.28645.8207.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E11531C3C187@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "json@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Json] Radically changing 4627bis X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 22:24:05 -0000 If it's "no hat": are you saying you think ECMA-404 is unsuitable as a normative referenc= e for 4627bis, because it's handling of Unicode semantics is incorrect?=20 Is the problem technical or political? (Number of emails on a subject is not a good metric of controversy, just of= familiarity.) > -----Original Message-----J > From: json-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:json-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of P= aul > Hoffman > Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2013 1:26 PM > To: Manger, James H > Cc: json@ietf.org > Subject: [Json] Radically changing 4627bis >=20 > >=20 > On Oct 8, 2013, at 5:38 PM, "Manger, James H" > wrote: >=20 > > But the publication of ECMA-404 means we should radically change 4627bi= s. > > Lets do what ECMA-404 "Introduction" suggests other standards do: > > > > It is expected that other standards will refer to this one, strictly > > adhering to the JSON text format, while imposing restrictions on vario= us > > encoding details. Such standards may require specific behaviours. JSON > > itself specifies no behaviour. > > > > Lets reference ECMA-404 -- not repeating any of the syntax. > > Define the media type. > > Discuss the interop issues with surrogates, huge integers, decimal floa= ts, > duplicate names, comments, encodings. > > Perhaps define terms such as "web-safe JSON" (for a subset of JSON) and > "web-safe JSON parser" (for specific parser behaviour) that other specs u= sing > JSON can refer to. > > > > I guess this is close to Tim's "Internet JSON" or "I-JSON" proposal. > > It is time to drop the minimal 4627 update. >=20 > A strong -1 on ripping out our syntax and pointing to ECMA-404. Our synta= x > matches their syntax, so there is not a conflict issue. ECMA-404 was supp= osed to > be syntax-only, but they included semantics about Unicode (characters vs.= code > points) that were important enough to this WG to generate hundreds of > messages on our mailing list. If we point to ECMA-404 for the syntax only= , and > add in our semantics on interoperability, there will then be a conflict t= hat will > have a negative effect on developers who are trying to create interoperab= le > implementations. >=20 > --Paul Hoffman > _______________________________________________ > json mailing list > json@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json From cabo@tzi.org Wed Oct 9 15:33:05 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA48B21E8210 for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 15:32:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.949 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.155, BAYES_00=-2.599, FRT_ADOBE2=2.455, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id J8gsLCY0ZRVx for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 15:32:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD44D21F9FB9 for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 15:32:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r99MWaXI027901; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 00:32:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.217.105] (p54891327.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.137.19.39]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EC4E81AE; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 00:32:35 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 00:32:34 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <20131008234810.28645.8207.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E11531C3C187@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com> To: Larry Masinter X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) Cc: "Manger, James H" , Paul Hoffman , "json@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Json] Radically changing 4627bis X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 22:33:05 -0000 On Oct 10, 2013, at 00:23, Larry Masinter wrote: > are you saying you think ECMA-404 is unsuitable as a normative = reference for 4627bis If the core of 404 is "syntax", I prefer ABNF over car racing. We then still have to specify the rest. Gr=FC=DFe, Carsten From paul.hoffman@vpnc.org Wed Oct 9 16:31:26 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E49CC21F9B6A for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 16:31:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.372 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.372 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.227, BAYES_00=-2.599, FRT_ADOBE2=2.455, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aGw1qDNtTO3Q for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 16:31:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A330321F9C28 for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 16:31:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.20.30.90] (50-1-98-185.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.1.98.185]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id r99NVJgc039903 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 9 Oct 2013 16:31:20 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: hoffman.proper.com: Host 50-1-98-185.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.1.98.185] claimed to be [10.20.30.90] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) From: Paul Hoffman In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 16:31:19 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <4A24CFDD-2634-4B11-A1F6-5E93231B0184@vpnc.org> References: <20131008234810.28645.8207.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E11531C3C187@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com> To: Larry Masinter X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) Cc: "json@ietf.org WG" Subject: Re: [Json] Radically changing 4627bis X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 23:31:27 -0000 On Oct 9, 2013, at 3:23 PM, Larry Masinter wrote: > are you saying you think ECMA-404 is unsuitable as a normative = reference for 4627bis, because it's handling of Unicode semantics is = incorrect?=20 No, that's not what I said. > Is the problem technical or political? Technical. > (Number of emails on a subject is not a good metric of controversy, = just of familiarity.) And that's not what I said either. I said "important"; note the = difference? --Paul Hoffman= From tbray@textuality.com Wed Oct 9 16:32:10 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15DC221F9C10 for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 16:32:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.131 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.131 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.155, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YcArmjCAiBJa for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 16:32:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vb0-f50.google.com (mail-vb0-f50.google.com [209.85.212.50]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4169021E81DC for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 16:32:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vb0-f50.google.com with SMTP id x14so1060944vbb.37 for ; Wed, 09 Oct 2013 16:32:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=pUOlJgLSFqRx166XJsa+WTiw/ZcTXEvks4FMxbf0UNY=; b=OfGLTaDeMsHA9x2/l5ZNMKExF1ADzJkwtn0gNe94Qg7Bs+24mIhKPWP1n12wbRptba tNV6vaRYO9MTcrzhBN/UiPbQuG2QnAwq6HZIPT2vDQ0sl06IEh35a9yF5CLPWzAjoJ9Y tYO1X0eMLwHUDZvAgjFPedK2VmKd2pQYrGRujzYRo2UK6gzYEcwPSw6Vbv6T+N43DSHO lg51jqXtofknbkIi/Io6tJEFxHnM2GEDyP0PjxN3hW2nD0wyygUHBSplSGyNbzU1kfzQ NWZow1jfBdXh9KAliRRnUZm4z8oa4gjf9VZ5fto9r6b0Mtz0w93Hyx7uL2LHMQQBTA/C 4r+g== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlA8A6XSqr9Y5Z3WJG0E+Uuwwp1sIGC594vUq6NQ+3G3Jm5YgJSSvy23EH2IJhmP76usf19 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.52.232.8 with SMTP id tk8mr1675506vdc.76.1381361523568; Wed, 09 Oct 2013 16:32:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.174.197 with HTTP; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 16:32:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [96.49.81.176] In-Reply-To: References: <20131008234810.28645.8207.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E11531C3C187@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com> Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 16:32:03 -0700 Message-ID: From: Tim Bray To: Paul Hoffman Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01183906eb444404e8574a46 Cc: "Manger, James H" , "json@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Json] Radically changing 4627bis X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 23:32:10 -0000 --089e01183906eb444404e8574a46 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The descriptions in ECMA 404 and 4627 and json.org and ECMA 262 and the -bis draft are all isomorphic as respects JSON syntax. Except for the ECMA family doesn't impose the top-level array-or-object restriction. Also 404 says nothing at all about dupes in objects and loses a few other bits & pieces such as default encodings. Thus there would be no benefit to a reader of -bis in making them go anywhere else to learn the syntax because it=E2=80=99s the same everywhere.= So I think the -bis draft helpfully covers the same syntax ground, while also offering interoperability-problems advice. I don=E2=80=99t see any benefit= in decomposing the -bis at this point. On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 1:26 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > > > On Oct 8, 2013, at 5:38 PM, "Manger, James H" < > james.h.manger@team.telstra.com> wrote: > > > But the publication of ECMA-404 means we should radically change 4627bi= s. > > Lets do what ECMA-404 "Introduction" suggests other standards do: > > > > It is expected that other standards will refer to this one, strictly > > adhering to the JSON text format, while imposing restrictions on vario= us > > encoding details. Such standards may require specific behaviours. JSON > > itself specifies no behaviour. > > > > Lets reference ECMA-404 -- not repeating any of the syntax. > > Define the media type. > > Discuss the interop issues with surrogates, huge integers, decimal > floats, duplicate names, comments, encodings. > > Perhaps define terms such as "web-safe JSON" (for a subset of JSON) and > "web-safe JSON parser" (for specific parser behaviour) that other specs > using JSON can refer to. > > > > I guess this is close to Tim=E2=80=99s "Internet JSON" or "I-JSON" prop= osal. > > It is time to drop the minimal 4627 update. > > A strong -1 on ripping out our syntax and pointing to ECMA-404. Our synta= x > matches their syntax, so there is not a conflict issue. ECMA-404 was > supposed to be syntax-only, but they included semantics about Unicode > (characters vs. code points) that were important enough to this WG to > generate hundreds of messages on our mailing list. If we point to ECMA-40= 4 > for the syntax only, and add in our semantics on interoperability, there > will then be a conflict that will have a negative effect on developers wh= o > are trying to create interoperable implementations. > > --Paul Hoffman > _______________________________________________ > json mailing list > json@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json > --089e01183906eb444404e8574a46 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The descriptions in ECMA 404 and 4627 and json.org and ECMA 262 and the -bis draft are all isomorphic= as respects JSON syntax.=C2=A0 Except for the ECMA family doesn't impo= se the top-level array-or-object restriction.=C2=A0 Also 404 says nothing a= t all about dupes in objects and loses a few other bits & pieces such a= s default encodings.

Thus there would be no benefit to a reader of -bis in making them go an= ywhere else to learn the syntax because it=E2=80=99s the same everywhere.= =C2=A0 So I think the -bis draft helpfully covers the same syntax ground, w= hile also offering interoperability-problems advice.=C2=A0 I don=E2=80=99t = see any benefit in decomposing the -bis at this point.


On Wed,= Oct 9, 2013 at 1:26 PM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote:
<no hat>

On Oct 8, 2013, at 5:38 PM, "Manger, James H" <james.h.manger@team.telstra.com>= wrote:

> But the publication of ECMA-404 means we should radically change 4627b= is.
> Lets do what ECMA-404 "Introduction" suggests other standard= s do:
>
> =C2=A0It is expected that other standards will refer to this one, stri= ctly
> =C2=A0adhering to the JSON text format, while imposing restrictions on= various
> =C2=A0encoding details. Such standards may require specific behaviours= . JSON
> =C2=A0itself specifies no behaviour.
>
> Lets reference ECMA-404 -- not repeating any of the syntax.
> Define the media type.
> Discuss the interop issues with surrogates, huge integers, decimal flo= ats, duplicate names, comments, encodings.
> Perhaps define terms such as "web-safe JSON" (for a subset o= f JSON) and "web-safe JSON parser" (for specific parser behaviour= ) that other specs using JSON can refer to.
>
> I guess this is close to Tim=E2=80=99s "Internet JSON" or &q= uot;I-JSON" proposal.
> It is time to drop the minimal 4627 update.

A strong -1 on ripping out our syntax and pointing to ECMA-404. Our syntax = matches their syntax, so there is not a conflict issue. ECMA-404 was suppos= ed to be syntax-only, but they included semantics about Unicode (characters= vs. code points) that were important enough to this WG to generate hundred= s of messages on our mailing list. If we point to ECMA-404 for the syntax o= nly, and add in our semantics on interoperability, there will then be a con= flict that will have a negative effect on developers who are trying to crea= te interoperable implementations.

--Paul Hoffman
_______________________________________________
json mailing list
json@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json

--089e01183906eb444404e8574a46-- From James.H.Manger@team.telstra.com Wed Oct 9 17:39:21 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EFE621E823A for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 17:39:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.566 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.566 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.335, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_AU=0.377, HOST_EQ_AU=0.327, RELAY_IS_203=0.994] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pqhdbsMJVDIy for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 17:39:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ipxcno.tcif.telstra.com.au (ipxcno.tcif.telstra.com.au [203.35.82.208]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2929A21E8235 for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 17:39:13 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.90,1067,1371045600"; d="scan'208";a="153712191" Received: from unknown (HELO ipcani.tcif.telstra.com.au) ([10.97.216.200]) by ipocni.tcif.telstra.com.au with ESMTP; 10 Oct 2013 11:38:58 +1100 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,7223"; a="116805684" Received: from wsmsg3752.srv.dir.telstra.com ([172.49.40.173]) by ipcani.tcif.telstra.com.au with ESMTP; 10 Oct 2013 11:38:57 +1100 Received: from WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com ([172.49.40.159]) by WSMSG3752.srv.dir.telstra.com ([172.49.40.173]) with mapi; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 11:38:57 +1100 From: "Manger, James H" To: Tim Bray , Paul Hoffman Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 11:38:56 +1100 Thread-Topic: [Json] Radically changing 4627bis Thread-Index: Ac7FR8SyJbKTtkhMRaanxwN0WYX8uAAADAsg Message-ID: <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E11531CC0153@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com> References: <20131008234810.28645.8207.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E11531C3C187@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US, en-AU Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US, en-AU Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "json@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Json] Radically changing 4627bis X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 00:39:21 -0000 PiBUaGUgZGVzY3JpcHRpb25zIGluIEVDTUEgNDA0IGFuZCA0NjI3IGFuZCBqc29uLm9yZyBhbmQg RUNNQSAyNjIgYW5kIHRoZQ0KPiAtYmlzIGRyYWZ0IGFyZSBhbGwgaXNvbW9ycGhpYyBhcyByZXNw ZWN0cyBKU09OIHN5bnRheC7CoCBFeGNlcHQgZm9yIHRoZQ0KPiBFQ01BIGZhbWlseSBkb2Vzbid0 IGltcG9zZSB0aGUgdG9wLWxldmVsIGFycmF5LW9yLW9iamVjdCByZXN0cmljdGlvbi4NCg0KT25l ICJFeGNlcHQgZm9yIiBpcyBhbG1vc3QgZW5vdWdoIHJlYXNvbiBub3QgdG8gcmV3cml0ZSB0aGUg c3ludGF4IGluIC1iaXMuDQpQYXJ0aWN1bGFybHkgYXMgNDA0J3MgcmVtb3Zpbmcgb2YgdGhlIHRv cC1sZXZlbC1pcy1hcnJheS1vci1vYmplY3QgcmVzdHJpY3Rpb24NCmlzIE5PVCBleGFjdGx5IHRo ZSBzYW1lIGFzIHVzaW5nIHRoZSA8dmFsdWU+IEFCTkYgcHJvZHVjdGlvbiBpbnN0ZWFkDQpvZiB0 aGUgPEpTT04tdGV4dD4gcHJvZHVjdGlvbiBpbiAtYmlzLiA8dmFsdWU+IGRvZXNuJ3QgYWxsb3cg d2hpdGVzcGFjZSBhcm91bmQNCnN0cmluZ3MsIG51bWJlcnMsIGJvb2xlYW5zLCBhbmQgbnVsbCwg d2hpbGUgRUNNQSA0MDQgZG9lcy4NCg0KVG8gYmUgY29uc2lzdGVudCB3aXRoIEVDTUEgNDA0LCA0 NjI3YmlzIEFCTkYgd291bGQgbmVlZCB0byBiZSBzbGlnaHRseSBhZGp1c3RlZC4NCkZyb206DQog IHZhbHVlID0gZmFsc2UgLyBudWxsIC8gdHJ1ZSAvIG9iamVjdCAvIGFycmF5IC8gbnVtYmVyIC8g c3RyaW5nDQpUbzoNCiAgdmFsdWUgPSB3cyAoIGZhbHNlIC8gbnVsbCAvIHRydWUgLyBvYmplY3Qg LyBhcnJheSAvIG51bWJlciAvIHN0cmluZyApIHdzDQoNCg0KPiBUaHVzIHRoZXJlIHdvdWxkIGJl IG5vIGJlbmVmaXQgdG8gYSByZWFkZXIgb2YgLWJpcyBpbiBtYWtpbmcgdGhlbSBnbw0KPiBhbnl3 aGVyZSBlbHNlIHRvIGxlYXJuIHRoZSBzeW50YXggYmVjYXVzZSBpdOKAmXMgdGhlIHNhbWUgZXZl cnl3aGVyZS4NCg0KQ29udmVyc2VseSB0aGVyZSBpcyBubyBiZW5lZml0IGluIG1ha2luZyBldmVy eSByZWFkZXIgd29uZGVyIGlmIHRoZXJlIGFyZQ0Kc3VidGxlIGRpZmZlcmVuY2VzIGJldHdlZW4g dGhlIEFCTkYtYmFzZWQgc3ludGF4IGluIC1iaXMgYW5kIHRoZQ0KdG9rZW5zK3JhY2V0cmFjayBk ZXNjcmlwdGlvbiBpbiA0MDQuDQoNCkluY2x1ZGluZyAxIGV4YW1wbGUgSlNPTiB2YWx1ZSBpbiAt YmlzIHdvdWxkIGJlIHN1ZmZpY2llbnQgZm9yIHJlYWRlcnMNCm5vdCB0byBoYXZlIHRvIHJldHVy biB0byA0MDQgdG8gcmVtZW1iZXIgKG9yIGV2ZW4gbGVhcm4pIHRoZSBzeW50YXguDQoNCi0tDQpK YW1lcyBNYW5nZXINCg0K From James.H.Manger@team.telstra.com Wed Oct 9 18:03:35 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15AE921E8235 for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 18:03:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.603 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.603 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.298, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_AU=0.377, HOST_EQ_AU=0.327, RELAY_IS_203=0.994] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uPTfUmpx3I+k for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 18:03:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ipxbvo.tcif.telstra.com.au (ipxbvo.tcif.telstra.com.au [203.35.135.204]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 660C421E823D for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 18:03:23 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.90,1067,1371045600"; d="scan'208";a="165126428" Received: from unknown (HELO ipcavi.tcif.telstra.com.au) ([10.97.217.200]) by ipobvi.tcif.telstra.com.au with ESMTP; 10 Oct 2013 12:03:22 +1100 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,7223"; a="220830933" Received: from wsmsg3753.srv.dir.telstra.com ([172.49.40.174]) by ipcavi.tcif.telstra.com.au with ESMTP; 10 Oct 2013 12:03:22 +1100 Received: from WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com ([172.49.40.159]) by WSMSG3753.srv.dir.telstra.com ([172.49.40.174]) with mapi; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 12:03:21 +1100 From: "Manger, James H" To: "json@ietf.org" Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 12:03:21 +1100 Thread-Topic: {"Height": 125, "Width": "100"} example Thread-Index: Ac7FVINCURNGj9hiS9qr0wwFASRz+w== Message-ID: <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E11531CC024B@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com> Accept-Language: en-US, en-AU Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US, en-AU Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [Json] {"Height": 125, "Width": "100"} example X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 01:03:35 -0000 NDYyNyBhbmQgNDYyN2JpcyBpbmNsdWRlIGFuIGV4YW1wbGUgd2l0aCB0aGUgZm9sbG93aW5nIG9i amVjdCBtZW1iZXJzOg0KICB7DQogICAgIkhlaWdodCI6IDEyNSwNCiAgICAiV2lkdGgiOiAgIjEw MCINCiAgfSwNCg0KVGhpcyBsb29rcyBsaWtlIGEgdHlwbyAoIjEwMCIgaW5zdGVhZCBvZiAxMDAp LCBidXQgaXQgaXMgc3RpbGwgdmFsaWQgSlNPTi4NCg0KSXMgdGhpcyBhIHR5cG8gKHRoYXQgLWJp cyBzaG91bGQgY29ycmVjdCk/DQpPciBpcyB0aGlzIGEgc3VidGxlIHN1Z2dlc3Rpb24gdG8gSlNP TiBwYXJzZXJzIHRoYXQgdGhleSBzaG91bGQgYXV0b21hdGljYWxseQ0KdHJ5IHRvIGNvbnZlcnQg c3RyaW5ncyB0byBudW1iZXJzIGlmIGFuIGFwcCBhc2tzIGZvciwgc2F5LCB0aGUgIldpZHRoIiBm aWVsZA0KYXMgYW4gaW50IGJ1dCB0aGUgcGFyc2VyIGZpbmRzIGEgc3RyaW5nIGluIHRoZSBKU09O Pw0KDQotLQ0KSmFtZXMgTWFuZ2VyDQoNCg0K From johnl@iecc.com Wed Oct 9 18:51:23 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9905921F9C06 for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 18:51:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.904 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.904 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.164, BAYES_20=-0.74, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nUFbJopMmlm6 for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 18:51:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC7EA21F9C99 for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 18:51:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 39409 invoked from network); 10 Oct 2013 01:51:14 -0000 Received: from leila.iecc.com (64.57.183.34) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 10 Oct 2013 01:51:14 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=52560812.xn--9vv.k1309; i=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=3g2gkj5dsszsoGwPFd/x5zKfGVth8/9wkl7DnJaUKbs=; b=PoZfnlU8XBJRqdAu5oBCEoMuFnb0lf1l7OzIAW6hh5rcloXuNI3qesPBVMk9rR0HukjlgmARVXwG06ddzCHlxuaVYgERYQIvvnA08tYwPXnfA73Dj+gPbBtOSm5VIDpTWm5wAip5IcUzOo6zy/TBchT9stOLNtjiyWOufJfBVZjaoFB8Dvh7rzidhJ12JNsZKLk+Tza+6eySfhnmGqluIVNImhi/Z3S+AWyB634/CvB6oLMCGcXVE1brTbUloeFW DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=52560812.xn--9vv.k1309; olt=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=3g2gkj5dsszsoGwPFd/x5zKfGVth8/9wkl7DnJaUKbs=; b=QBMVQCnxdugbSeKp4ijHzueXs3ET7drVegYdOMu/aShnQH0k4NTqmQgRK8hVkIsdxluPiwaTluppOwYgL1K7BQy+lwDvsumR89fZnA81TlLs+iOPh+2BNj1HookC34kjmlPcW3Vn+1y9UegJF1oo6Ks3jnyEha559xHu0SmOAZptJlyemHoz/RsKd6nP72NFMrcsp53udaYIjTK4EGJhfFHvxNtQXwPChJk5MQS10GdSnPKiZU2nPH0onFZIl8Jh Date: 10 Oct 2013 01:50:52 -0000 Message-ID: <20131010015052.3612.qmail@joyce.lan> From: "John Levine" To: json@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <5254619E.7040407@gmail.com> Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit Cc: pfpschneider@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Json] FYI ECMA, W3C, IETF coordination on JSON X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 01:51:23 -0000 >So I would say that JSON is only interoperable if you don't care too much >about interoperability, and you don't hit any of the really ugly corner cases. JSON is very interoperable if your producer stays away from the corner cases that have provoked blizzards of recent messages. It is my impression that in practice, many, perhaps most, applications do so. Certainly for most of the stuff I do, the numbers are all integers and the strings are straightforward Unicode. R's, John From mamille2@cisco.com Wed Oct 9 20:21:19 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 508AA21F99F0 for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 20:21:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id c+uMmSDP0P5k for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 20:21:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 560FD21F999C for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 20:21:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=6341; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1381375273; x=1382584873; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=io/tVKLShluXm7CM5EtA8bjgv8/bMVZA5oapCRyH8uI=; b=gZ6sLgKTnfjnWnNgwKHtk0lRtK6KfhHukvaPrZOn7aPfyId/qRN1A72O 6QRGg2TLx88HVKpVYVo9+QzhSUFHD/JsB4B+SEckfNWrXwWtgyoT3NeBg DwDB3od1ceh/fxHgL6yHOFY4MlSKtX74HbgBcRJV1wSfIAStNaGFUW9t0 Y=; X-Files: smime.p7s : 4136 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ai0FAOocVlKtJXHA/2dsb2JhbABZgweBCsEZgR4WdIInAQQdbgEqJjAnBBsGh3iYEaFBjxSDV4EEA5ApgTCYK4Mkgio X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.90,1068,1371081600"; d="p7s'?scan'208";a="270302769" Received: from rcdn-core2-5.cisco.com ([173.37.113.192]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP; 10 Oct 2013 03:21:12 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x11.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x11.cisco.com [173.37.183.85]) by rcdn-core2-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r9A3LC6g023667 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 03:21:12 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x11.cisco.com ([169.254.6.119]) by xhc-rcd-x11.cisco.com ([173.37.183.85]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 22:21:11 -0500 From: "Matt Miller (mamille2)" To: JSON WG Thread-Topic: REMINDER - WGLC Ends 2013-10-11 Thread-Index: AQHOxWfEKZonjAyzEk632XJZaTBubg== Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 03:21:11 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.21.94.19] Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_AF4A0062-A393-4D3A-856C-7865CBD22D9F"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [Json] REMINDER - WGLC Ends 2013-10-11 X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 03:21:19 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_AF4A0062-A393-4D3A-856C-7865CBD22D9F Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii A reminder that the current Working Group Last Call for = draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis officially ends on Friday, October 11. = Please provide any feedback as soon as you can, even if it's "the draft = is good enough". Thanks! - Paul Hoffman and Matt Miller --Apple-Mail=_AF4A0062-A393-4D3A-856C-7865CBD22D9F Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIMezCCBjQw ggQcoAMCAQICAR4wDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwfTELMAkGA1UEBhMCSUwxFjAUBgNVBAoTDVN0YXJ0 Q29tIEx0ZC4xKzApBgNVBAsTIlNlY3VyZSBEaWdpdGFsIENlcnRpZmljYXRlIFNpZ25pbmcxKTAn BgNVBAMTIFN0YXJ0Q29tIENlcnRpZmljYXRpb24gQXV0aG9yaXR5MB4XDTA3MTAyNDIxMDE1NVoX DTE3MTAyNDIxMDE1NVowgYwxCzAJBgNVBAYTAklMMRYwFAYDVQQKEw1TdGFydENvbSBMdGQuMSsw KQYDVQQLEyJTZWN1cmUgRGlnaXRhbCBDZXJ0aWZpY2F0ZSBTaWduaW5nMTgwNgYDVQQDEy9TdGFy dENvbSBDbGFzcyAxIFByaW1hcnkgSW50ZXJtZWRpYXRlIENsaWVudCBDQTCCASIwDQYJKoZIhvcN AQEBBQADggEPADCCAQoCggEBAMcJg8zOLdgasSmkLhOrlr6KMoOMpohBllVHrdRvEg/q6r8jR+EK 75xCGhR8ToREoqe7zM9/UnC6TS2y9UKTpT1v7RSMzR0t6ndl0TWBuUr/UXBhPk+Kmy7bI4yW4urC +y7P3/1/X7U8ocb8VpH/Clt+4iq7nirMcNh6qJR+xjOhV+VHzQMALuGYn5KZmc1NbJQYclsGkDxD z2UbFqE2+6vIZoL+jb9x4Pa5gNf1TwSDkOkikZB1xtB4ZqtXThaABSONdfmv/Z1pua3FYxnCFmdr /+N2JLKutIxMYqQOJebr/f/h5t95m4JgrM3Y/w7YX9d7YAL9jvN4SydHsU6n65cCAwEAAaOCAa0w ggGpMA8GA1UdEwEB/wQFMAMBAf8wDgYDVR0PAQH/BAQDAgEGMB0GA1UdDgQWBBRTcu2SnODaywFc fH6WNU7y1LhRgjAfBgNVHSMEGDAWgBROC+8apEBbpRdphzDKNGhD0EGu8jBmBggrBgEFBQcBAQRa MFgwJwYIKwYBBQUHMAGGG2h0dHA6Ly9vY3NwLnN0YXJ0c3NsLmNvbS9jYTAtBggrBgEFBQcwAoYh aHR0cDovL3d3dy5zdGFydHNzbC5jb20vc2ZzY2EuY3J0MFsGA1UdHwRUMFIwJ6AloCOGIWh0dHA6 Ly93d3cuc3RhcnRzc2wuY29tL3Nmc2NhLmNybDAnoCWgI4YhaHR0cDovL2NybC5zdGFydHNzbC5j b20vc2ZzY2EuY3JsMIGABgNVHSAEeTB3MHUGCysGAQQBgbU3AQIBMGYwLgYIKwYBBQUHAgEWImh0 dHA6Ly93d3cuc3RhcnRzc2wuY29tL3BvbGljeS5wZGYwNAYIKwYBBQUHAgEWKGh0dHA6Ly93d3cu c3RhcnRzc2wuY29tL2ludGVybWVkaWF0ZS5wZGYwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQADggIBAAqDCH14qywG XLhjjF6uHLkjd02hcdh9hrw+VUsv+q1eeQWB21jWj3kJ96AUlPCoEGZ/ynJNScWy6QMVQjbbMXlt UfO4n4bGGdKo3awPWp61tjAFgraLJgDk+DsSvUD6EowjMTNx25GQgyYJ5RPIzKKR9tQW8gGK+2+R HxkUCTbYFnL6kl8Ch507rUdPPipJ9CgJFws3kDS3gOS5WFMxcjO5DwKfKSETEPrHh7p5shuuNktv sv6hxHTLhiMKX893gxdT3XLS9OKmCv87vkINQcNEcIIoFWbP9HORz9v3vQwR4e3ksLc2JZOAFK+s sS5XMEoznzpihEP0PLc4dCBYjbvSD7kxgDwZ+Aj8Q9PkbvE9sIPP7ON0fz095HdThKjiVJe6vofq +n6b1NBc8XdrQvBmunwxD5nvtTW4vtN6VY7mUCmxsCieuoBJ9OlqmsVWQvifIYf40dJPZkk9YgGT zWLpXDSfLSplbY2LL9C9U0ptvjcDjefLTvqSFc7tw1sEhF0n/qpA2r0GpvkLRDmcSwVyPvmjFBGq Up/pNy8ZuPGQmHwFi2/14+xeSUDG2bwnsYJQG2EdJCB6luQ57GEnTA/yKZSTKI8dDQa8Sd3zfXb1 9mOgSF0bBdXbuKhEpuP9wirslFe6fQ1t5j5R0xi72MZ8ikMu1RQZKCyDbMwazlHiMIIGPzCCBSeg AwIBAgIDBoRIMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAMIGMMQswCQYDVQQGEwJJTDEWMBQGA1UEChMNU3RhcnRD b20gTHRkLjErMCkGA1UECxMiU2VjdXJlIERpZ2l0YWwgQ2VydGlmaWNhdGUgU2lnbmluZzE4MDYG A1UEAxMvU3RhcnRDb20gQ2xhc3MgMSBQcmltYXJ5IEludGVybWVkaWF0ZSBDbGllbnQgQ0EwHhcN MTMwNDMwMjE1NDQyWhcNMTQwNTAyMDUzOTA0WjBbMRkwFwYDVQQNExBiN2F6NndOY0t0R3JtMEpF MRswGQYDVQQDDBJtYW1pbGxlMkBjaXNjby5jb20xITAfBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWEm1hbWlsbGUyQGNp c2NvLmNvbTCCASIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADggEPADCCAQoCggEBAJbKBMsG+9UFTx9uq/bhhXgu vJvO8z7cwKaqqwZhVf5z/kHFyCNijtmTOE+YXjA8mWR4aoBwB5SvGypI/cJUofJ+AlBTC4g+RMx/ K0Ab4/jQqTQz9CDzMOB+Wm+rt8ZJ7A8ZzOJmNDAsf/VvB8l2A1SQz1UsAixgH16NTr8SlblAXEKk 4hwpCudUiNjjQokqJ0H686UBKVorcZSgXaza8XMqGtJF/8mNhR9GQYi7Xht1ky+9LFOrto2daZto KJRwMeVusVdHUeKEQSu7jztw8HchH3KEb7Q+r5X+hhDZoddfKE8d5eyPuhiZdrzv7OlNZ0fSLdx7 3AE3nx9/R5YlXucCAwEAAaOCAtgwggLUMAkGA1UdEwQCMAAwCwYDVR0PBAQDAgSwMB0GA1UdJQQW MBQGCCsGAQUFBwMCBggrBgEFBQcDBDAdBgNVHQ4EFgQUxGd+/qrdVudHrIKkw5xOMY7eaLUwHwYD VR0jBBgwFoAUU3Ltkpzg2ssBXHx+ljVO8tS4UYIwHQYDVR0RBBYwFIESbWFtaWxsZTJAY2lzY28u Y29tMIIBTAYDVR0gBIIBQzCCAT8wggE7BgsrBgEEAYG1NwECAzCCASowLgYIKwYBBQUHAgEWImh0 dHA6Ly93d3cuc3RhcnRzc2wuY29tL3BvbGljeS5wZGYwgfcGCCsGAQUFBwICMIHqMCcWIFN0YXJ0 Q29tIENlcnRpZmljYXRpb24gQXV0aG9yaXR5MAMCAQEagb5UaGlzIGNlcnRpZmljYXRlIHdhcyBp c3N1ZWQgYWNjb3JkaW5nIHRvIHRoZSBDbGFzcyAxIFZhbGlkYXRpb24gcmVxdWlyZW1lbnRzIG9m IHRoZSBTdGFydENvbSBDQSBwb2xpY3ksIHJlbGlhbmNlIG9ubHkgZm9yIHRoZSBpbnRlbmRlZCBw dXJwb3NlIGluIGNvbXBsaWFuY2Ugb2YgdGhlIHJlbHlpbmcgcGFydHkgb2JsaWdhdGlvbnMuMDYG A1UdHwQvMC0wK6ApoCeGJWh0dHA6Ly9jcmwuc3RhcnRzc2wuY29tL2NydHUxLWNybC5jcmwwgY4G CCsGAQUFBwEBBIGBMH8wOQYIKwYBBQUHMAGGLWh0dHA6Ly9vY3NwLnN0YXJ0c3NsLmNvbS9zdWIv Y2xhc3MxL2NsaWVudC9jYTBCBggrBgEFBQcwAoY2aHR0cDovL2FpYS5zdGFydHNzbC5jb20vY2Vy dHMvc3ViLmNsYXNzMS5jbGllbnQuY2EuY3J0MCMGA1UdEgQcMBqGGGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuc3RhcnRz c2wuY29tLzANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFAAOCAQEAlDhXbGEI7lbqUcu5r2JHZaMsbRZda/99ZqODzWGX 0llou9jGccsAWDPPwRRe2+ROpXfH4cuJZElTcLDeZSp/qpXKhjYieFSX8+Ml9sKEj5UOSqQLyoLk PtrIJV12Jk3nuG2Jc0UeEnGwK/aqtzy7+bfEVI0ziyVM2gChHh0RH74KyiwYWknbOTRIkZcz/ulE DVFQp63uj6wfmDNvAUHBAdhKVqA1S/rfP1KcDZpf1NfvwXJibiqTRA6K1EOxTJOP41n/XdvHqHXL RWL2xrOUI9/URANr/ok3OrsuZEMFnAAGefS1bWS/hFtUGVkHGiKEBbyDW7da2ULXbuC7umrQnzGC A28wggNrAgEBMIGUMIGMMQswCQYDVQQGEwJJTDEWMBQGA1UEChMNU3RhcnRDb20gTHRkLjErMCkG A1UECxMiU2VjdXJlIERpZ2l0YWwgQ2VydGlmaWNhdGUgU2lnbmluZzE4MDYGA1UEAxMvU3RhcnRD b20gQ2xhc3MgMSBQcmltYXJ5IEludGVybWVkaWF0ZSBDbGllbnQgQ0ECAwaESDAJBgUrDgMCGgUA oIIBrzAYBgkqhkiG9w0BCQMxCwYJKoZIhvcNAQcBMBwGCSqGSIb3DQEJBTEPFw0xMzEwMTAwMzIx MTFaMCMGCSqGSIb3DQEJBDEWBBSj+IW/ZLanB1dyha95KrPne+codTCBpQYJKwYBBAGCNxAEMYGX MIGUMIGMMQswCQYDVQQGEwJJTDEWMBQGA1UEChMNU3RhcnRDb20gTHRkLjErMCkGA1UECxMiU2Vj dXJlIERpZ2l0YWwgQ2VydGlmaWNhdGUgU2lnbmluZzE4MDYGA1UEAxMvU3RhcnRDb20gQ2xhc3Mg MSBQcmltYXJ5IEludGVybWVkaWF0ZSBDbGllbnQgQ0ECAwaESDCBpwYLKoZIhvcNAQkQAgsxgZeg gZQwgYwxCzAJBgNVBAYTAklMMRYwFAYDVQQKEw1TdGFydENvbSBMdGQuMSswKQYDVQQLEyJTZWN1 cmUgRGlnaXRhbCBDZXJ0aWZpY2F0ZSBTaWduaW5nMTgwNgYDVQQDEy9TdGFydENvbSBDbGFzcyAx IFByaW1hcnkgSW50ZXJtZWRpYXRlIENsaWVudCBDQQIDBoRIMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUABIIBACrA If1lapjWoq6aELEx2GCtzCDB7v3R0WS6hR6xeXMcCCKcR65jescKngmGafCd8uhZw9fnYvFBFXya PC7LXePjy4Vte94anFEaC6KCTdu52+vDvpXiewkuFmOt6gx4FFLvyuqIl1Hlf23IohOq3IULIPPG vk6zCeYJejzzV8LWTLFsvJYnPaBzcmSgle7EYNW7GJ48RLi0gmFketKuj/TJBTVNWIhf1dMVmNVx 1j/NrJUxESsXvAiZWxH2Ex/U2E70t7h5mS5IDwJs00JI2+Cb5PDoCIhU43h9UYgVGBzl16SQvuYJ b6m1c7TtmFUvLMT6JUxnTNS0naM9WS3YG+MAAAAAAAA= --Apple-Mail=_AF4A0062-A393-4D3A-856C-7865CBD22D9F-- From duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp Wed Oct 9 21:05:37 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9C7221E8277 for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 21:05:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.017 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.017 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.682, BAYES_00=-2.599, FRT_ADOBE2=2.455, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YiKqAMmShVU2 for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 21:05:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scintmta02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (scintmta02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp [133.2.253.34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CEF221E8278 for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 21:05:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scmse02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp ([133.2.253.231]) by scintmta02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (secret/secret) with SMTP id r9A45Kj2002062; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 13:05:20 +0900 Received: from (unknown [133.2.206.134]) by scmse02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp with smtp id 29cc_71af_2e14e826_3161_11e3_be8f_001e6722eec2; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 13:05:20 +0900 Received: from [IPv6:::1] (unknown [133.2.210.1]) by itmail2.it.aoyama.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B7B9BFBBA; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 13:05:20 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <52562772.3020308@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 13:05:06 +0900 From: =?UTF-8?B?Ik1hcnRpbiBKLiBEw7xyc3Qi?= Organization: Aoyama Gakuin University User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100722 Eudora/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Carsten Bormann References: <20131008234810.28645.8207.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E11531C3C187@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "json@ietf.org" Subject: [Json] [OT] Re: Radically changing 4627bis X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 04:05:37 -0000 [most probably off topic] On 2013/10/10 7:32, Carsten Bormann wrote: > On Oct 10, 2013, at 00:23, Larry Masinter wrote: > >> are you saying you think ECMA-404 is unsuitable as a normative referen= ce for 4627bis > > If the core of 404 is "syntax", I prefer ABNF over car racing. I assume that "car racing" refers to a style of specification close to=20 pseudocode, with step-by-step descriptions. How did this get the name "car racing"? Regards, Martin. > We then still have to specify the rest. > > Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten > > _______________________________________________ > json mailing list > json@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json > From cowan@ccil.org Wed Oct 9 21:33:18 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5E8811E81B6 for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 21:33:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.592 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.592 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.293, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e0qDplem1btU for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 21:33:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from earth.ccil.org (earth.ccil.org [192.190.237.11]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BCA311E8127 for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 21:33:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cowan by earth.ccil.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1VU7vq-0005hl-5i; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 00:33:02 -0400 Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 00:33:02 -0400 From: John Cowan To: =?iso-8859-1?B?Ik1hcnRpbiBKLiBE/HJzdCI=?= Message-ID: <20131010043302.GE32580@mercury.ccil.org> References: <20131008234810.28645.8207.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E11531C3C187@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com> <52562772.3020308@it.aoyama.ac.jp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <52562772.3020308@it.aoyama.ac.jp> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: John Cowan Cc: Carsten Bormann , "json@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Json] [OT] Re: Radically changing 4627bis X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 04:33:18 -0000 "Martin J. Drst" scripsit: > I assume that "car racing" refers to a style of specification close > to pseudocode, with step-by-step descriptions. Not at all. See . There are usually called "railroad diagrams", at least by me. -- You are a child of the universe no less John Cowan than the trees and all other acyclic http://www.ccil.org/~cowan graphs; you have a right to be here. cowan@ccil.org --DeXiderata by Sean McGrath From tbray@textuality.com Wed Oct 9 21:56:04 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87DAC21F8578 for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 21:56:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.771 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.771 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.205, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HeoEuQyrtS+l for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 21:55:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vb0-f48.google.com (mail-vb0-f48.google.com [209.85.212.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2204811E81BA for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 21:55:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vb0-f48.google.com with SMTP id w16so1232928vbf.35 for ; Wed, 09 Oct 2013 21:55:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=ut2vfvhyVgyQgsi189p/vgvCVu7QnHt/Y/vHtI3GDgg=; b=jgwUjuOFw9i7QbTEXxMkeNab9uC5GZe2LPkE8OqEuUxhAZK/gCkK3AWQ3B+rOfz7/j 4HaJ/JhYZK5dtxjBKt+xruGGhrrvYqJ7Xskm9OVN0VKhk/Wsqmqd6fW7APkUZd/j5S6F uf2XO9qNttxzvHW6vbAqz3bgcp5Rn+OpoDN99X41JhHevRhRWwFWAshMzEPC/N/8zlO7 El6g0TNaNZqbRiQZXk20/fWxv8yCyZJFtKSYPmZIckjGuyAejXxn4eYuB1dxVOxQxiBW lR8JahfBhvB6/07mlGY5mSdaKfHXnnF3n49SrEdtWisi3Ye2baZD+l9XmvnR+qrq7dtW tbJQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk/UMcILyLsltkkM0N279tZwD7XWKfmUUUTNLnPYhEMNoA/mYnM2F5M0KgPX1QuXv6ZvvoS MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.52.236.196 with SMTP id uw4mr3016209vdc.96.1381380958486; Wed, 09 Oct 2013 21:55:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.174.197 with HTTP; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 21:55:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [24.84.235.32] In-Reply-To: <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E11531CC024B@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com> References: <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E11531CC024B@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com> Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 21:55:58 -0700 Message-ID: From: Tim Bray To: "Manger, James H" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0117622754970204e85bd133 Cc: "json@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Json] {"Height": 125, "Width": "100"} example X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 04:56:04 -0000 --089e0117622754970204e85bd133 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Don=E2=80=99t know if it=E2=80=99s a typo, but it=E2=80=99s kind of charmin= gly idiosyncratic and has lasted all these years... let=E2=80=99s spare it. On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 6:03 PM, Manger, James H < James.H.Manger@team.telstra.com> wrote: > 4627 and 4627bis include an example with the following object members: > { > "Height": 125, > "Width": "100" > }, > > This looks like a typo ("100" instead of 100), but it is still valid JSON= . > > Is this a typo (that -bis should correct)? > Or is this a subtle suggestion to JSON parsers that they should > automatically > try to convert strings to numbers if an app asks for, say, the "Width" > field > as an int but the parser finds a string in the JSON? > > -- > James Manger > > > _______________________________________________ > json mailing list > json@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json > --089e0117622754970204e85bd133 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Don=E2=80=99t know if it=E2=80=99s a typo, but it=E2=80=99= s kind of charmingly idiosyncratic and has lasted all these years... let=E2= =80=99s spare it.


On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 6:03 PM, Manger, James H <James.H.Manger@team.telstra.com> wrote:
4627 and 4627bis include an example with the= following object members:
=C2=A0 {
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 "Height": 125,
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 "Width": =C2=A0"100"
=C2=A0 },

This looks like a typo ("100" instead of 100), but it is still va= lid JSON.

Is this a typo (that -bis should correct)?
Or is this a subtle suggestion to JSON parsers that they should automatical= ly
try to convert strings to numbers if an app asks for, say, the "Width&= quot; field
as an int but the parser finds a string in the JSON?

--
James Manger


_______________________________________________
json mailing list
json@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json

--089e0117622754970204e85bd133-- From tbray@textuality.com Wed Oct 9 22:00:21 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADD7721E80C8 for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 22:00:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.801 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.801 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.175, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w8UP2sMRLxib for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 22:00:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vb0-f44.google.com (mail-vb0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A33521E80CA for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 22:00:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vb0-f44.google.com with SMTP id e13so1245816vbg.3 for ; Wed, 09 Oct 2013 22:00:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=+2U3U/2F2YjMqBLoUDRKngn1aRqx1JEmkckbQph7BPw=; b=fvXAkyvCZ5GCB0j9B694uv0pe0roblTN5yzEpfqvYgishZYZKyZkbVEDYQzEpcIpXm Ka6Kh93TVPtxbpc1jDtApSLdswOLchP7OeXF4/+s2UQpEJVdkylp/cEl+G1G81KeEnuZ n11RrTMrvkrODMaZ7cmOCKtirbMoiA8wPZE0TDiUvdKta/9zGxA/fr8IhlPHIZ2O08ks xwHO+UnVPyV8OEUbszqq9tGyxRhcjk6Q940oaNsL+dCajsB/yN0wzQUY97s8RwhgbeiJ jLzcGW7zm5h5E9KX0xfaQ3ObJlDBz4xSxffB/t8WXU0cGHQtULuuPjRnxwXdfWZW1Tmd NeUg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkbhY7VSJkV+TbFJg3UcY94z0gy5HWT2tAlt1om7Oj5aCQZTvaMECI6Fh3fhEz5ESyHJOl9 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.220.183.199 with SMTP id ch7mr6128718vcb.27.1381381212937; Wed, 09 Oct 2013 22:00:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.174.197 with HTTP; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 22:00:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [24.84.235.32] In-Reply-To: <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E11531C3C187@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com> References: <20131008234810.28645.8207.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E11531C3C187@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com> Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 22:00:12 -0700 Message-ID: From: Tim Bray To: "Manger, James H" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c1bce07f392c04e85be0cd Cc: "json@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Json] I-D Action: draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-05.txt X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 05:00:21 -0000 --001a11c1bce07f392c04e85be0cd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable James Manger=E2=80=99s suggestion below is obviously good and I=E2=80=99ll = adopt it unless someone has a good reason not to. -T On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 5:38 PM, Manger, James H < James.H.Manger@team.telstra.com> wrote: > Editorial: > =E2=80=9Cfor example, "Hello world!", "42", and "true" would all be vali= d JSON > texts in the ECMAScript 5.1 context.=E2=80=9D > > This is not quite precise as the double-quotes are part of the JSON text > for the string example, but not for the number and Boolean examples. > Perhaps say: > > for example, each of the following 3 lines would be a valid JSON text > in the ECMAScript 5.1 context: > > "Hello world!" > 42 > true > --001a11c1bce07f392c04e85be0cd Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
James Manger=E2=80=99s suggestion below is obviously good = and I=E2=80=99ll adopt it unless someone has a good reason not to. -T

On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 5:38 PM, Manger, James H &l= t;Jame= s.H.Manger@team.telstra.com> wrote:
Editorial:
=C2=A0=E2=80=9Cfor example, "Hello world!", "42", and &= quot;true" would all be valid JSON texts in the ECMAScript 5.1 context= .=E2=80=9D

This is not quite precise as the double-quotes are part of the JSON text fo= r the string example, but not for the number and Boolean examples. Perhaps = say:

=C2=A0 for example, each of the following 3 lines would be a valid JSON tex= t
=C2=A0 in the ECMAScript 5.1 context:

=C2=A0 "Hello world!"
=C2=A0 42
=C2=A0 true
--001a11c1bce07f392c04e85be0cd-- From duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp Wed Oct 9 22:43:21 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B215911E8132 for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 22:43:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.188 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.188 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.602, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2r3YV-4YtA19 for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 22:43:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scintmta02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (scintmta02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp [133.2.253.34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA8B921E80DA for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 22:43:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scmse02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp ([133.2.253.231]) by scintmta02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (secret/secret) with SMTP id r9A5hCVX018954; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 14:43:13 +0900 Received: from (unknown [133.2.206.134]) by scmse02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp with smtp id 29c9_31ac_da37a3d4_316e_11e3_895c_001e6722eec2; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 14:43:12 +0900 Received: from [IPv6:::1] (unknown [133.2.210.1]) by itmail2.it.aoyama.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37F24BFBBA; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 14:43:12 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <52563E62.6080402@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 14:42:58 +0900 From: =?UTF-8?B?Ik1hcnRpbiBKLiBEw7xyc3Qi?= Organization: Aoyama Gakuin University User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100722 Eudora/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Cowan References: <20131008234810.28645.8207.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E11531C3C187@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com> <52562772.3020308@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <20131010043302.GE32580@mercury.ccil.org> In-Reply-To: <20131010043302.GE32580@mercury.ccil.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Carsten Bormann , "json@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Json] [OT] Re: Radically changing 4627bis X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 05:43:21 -0000 On 2013/10/10 13:33, John Cowan wrote: > "Martin J. D=C3=BCrst" scripsit: > >> I assume that "car racing" refers to a style of specification close >> to pseudocode, with step-by-step descriptions. > > Not at all. See. > There are usually called "railroad diagrams", at least by me. Oh, I see. So it's not about specification style, just about notation. Regards, Martin. From duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp Wed Oct 9 22:46:32 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B84721F853A for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 22:46:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.234 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.234 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.556, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LsOIIV-VV+tJ for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 22:46:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scintmta02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (scintmta02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp [133.2.253.34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E54C621F8613 for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 22:46:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scmse02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp ([133.2.253.231]) by scintmta02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (secret/secret) with SMTP id r9A5kFL3021613; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 14:46:15 +0900 Received: from (unknown [133.2.206.134]) by scmse02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp with smtp id 29c9_345e_47004322_316f_11e3_895c_001e6722eec2; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 14:46:14 +0900 Received: from [IPv6:::1] (unknown [133.2.210.1]) by itmail2.it.aoyama.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1276BFBBA; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 14:46:14 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <52563F18.5050408@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 14:46:00 +0900 From: =?UTF-8?B?Ik1hcnRpbiBKLiBEw7xyc3Qi?= Organization: Aoyama Gakuin University User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100722 Eudora/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tim Bray References: <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E11531CC024B@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "Manger, James H" , "json@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Json] {"Height": 125, "Width": "100"} example X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 05:46:32 -0000 On 2013/10/10 13:55, Tim Bray wrote: > Don=E2=80=99t know if it=E2=80=99s a typo, but it=E2=80=99s kind of cha= rmingly idiosyncratic and > has lasted all these years... let=E2=80=99s spare it. It's charmingly idiosyncratic (or should we call this idiosyntactic?)=20 for those who have enough self-confidence to see what's going on. Without explanation, it's not an example that should be copied in any=20 way, so I strongly advocate fixing it one way or the other (i.e.=20 removing the quotes from "100", changing "Width" to a property name more=20 in line with a string value, adding an explanation, or some such). Regards, Martin. > On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 6:03 PM, Manger, James H< > James.H.Manger@team.telstra.com> wrote: > >> 4627 and 4627bis include an example with the following object members: >> { >> "Height": 125, >> "Width": "100" >> }, >> >> This looks like a typo ("100" instead of 100), but it is still valid J= SON. >> >> Is this a typo (that -bis should correct)? >> Or is this a subtle suggestion to JSON parsers that they should >> automatically >> try to convert strings to numbers if an app asks for, say, the "Width" >> field >> as an int but the parser finds a string in the JSON? >> >> -- >> James Manger >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> json mailing list >> json@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > json mailing list > json@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json From cabo@tzi.org Thu Oct 10 00:32:56 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E963221E80E0 for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 00:32:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.974 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.974 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.025, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lq+kOVse+EPK for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 00:32:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D2A111E8142 for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 00:32:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r9A7WjxG016159; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 09:32:45 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.217.105] (p54891327.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.137.19.39]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3A7F9256; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 09:32:45 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: <52563E62.6080402@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 09:32:43 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <20131008234810.28645.8207.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E11531C3C187@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com> <52562772.3020308@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <20131010043302.GE32580@mercury.ccil.org> <52563E62.6080402@it.aoyama.ac.jp> To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Martin_J=2E_D=FCrst=22?= X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) Cc: John Cowan , "json@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Json] [OT] Re: Radically changing 4627bis X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 07:32:57 -0000 On Oct 10, 2013, at 07:42, "Martin J. D=FCrst" = wrote: > On 2013/10/10 13:33, John Cowan wrote: >> "Martin J. D=FCrst" scripsit: >>=20 >>> I assume that "car racing" refers to a style of specification close >>> to pseudocode, with step-by-step descriptions. >>=20 >> Not at all. See. >> There are usually called "railroad diagrams", at least by me. >=20 > Oh, I see. So it's not about specification style, just about notation. Yes, sorry for being opaque. (When they were popular in the 1970s, we = sometimes derided them as "Rennbahndiagramme", "racetrack diagrams".) I can put the ABNF into tools. Harder to do that with those nice = figures. These have the higher tutorial value, though, and are more accessible to = people without CS background. (Instead of trying to be a complete notation, they rely on the text, = e.g. "hexadecimal digits".) More generally speaking, I read ECMA 404 as a nice JSON tutorial, which = it does quite well. If I can get someone to read only 6 pages about JSON, these are the ones = I'd suggest. As with most tutorials, it wins by not addressing some of the more = difficult issues. Gr=FC=DFe, Carsten From markus.lanthaler@gmx.net Thu Oct 10 03:33:53 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8124821E8100 for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 03:33:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.738 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.738 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.980, BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT=1.449, RCVD_ILLEGAL_IP=1.908, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id B8evhsQwUjRu for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 03:33:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.18]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41AD511E80E8 for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 03:33:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Vostro3500 ([2.34.217.54]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx003) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MJBRC-1VVsFk1oPy-002r4A for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 12:33:46 +0200 From: "Markus Lanthaler" To: References: <20131008234810.28645.8207.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E11531C3C187@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com> In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 12:33:41 +0200 Message-ID: <00c001cec5a4$310c4840$9324d8c0$@lanthaler@gmx.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: Ac7FR8gN4JuOkP6NQvauCDcifAXbZQAXGMMw Content-Language: de X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:6Bk3rHqBCdOl3fAlYWqHZ4NylmVefZ9Rdaoi4nOBIN/3zuUpayi BMBZ0gSJmQUYhPjNcTHoTcqZwxwMACQPbgKZRIoWwAtnm+g0wf7cxnayQau3dgx+VsPGTwf oitUFNQ31GOJalPqe2dZeUS5wGiC6KAU+xZraaQAosN05OznsN5FxYmkIMINYEZd0oxqwGo a4JrNAaIMhyrlXeG2rwPg== Subject: Re: [Json] Radically changing 4627bis X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 10:33:53 -0000 On Thursday, October 10, 2013 1:32 AM, Tim Bray wrote: > The descriptions in ECMA 404 and 4627 and json.org and ECMA 262 and = the -bis > draft are all isomorphic as respects JSON syntax. Except for the ECMA > family doesn't impose the top-level array-or-object restriction. Also = 404 > says nothing at all about dupes in objects and loses a few other bits = & > pieces such as default encodings. >=20 > Thus there would be no benefit to a reader of -bis in making them go > anywhere else to learn the syntax because it=E2=80=99s the same = everywhere. So I > think the -bis draft helpfully covers the same syntax ground, while = also > offering interoperability-problems advice. I don=E2=80=99t see any = benefit in > decomposing the -bis at this point. +1 -- Markus Lanthaler @markuslanthaler From jorge@jorgechamorro.com Thu Oct 10 04:48:38 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2728A21E8106 for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 04:48:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PGoCrnZ-qPCG for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 04:48:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wg0-f48.google.com (mail-wg0-f48.google.com [74.125.82.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15C5D21E80FC for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 04:48:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wg0-f48.google.com with SMTP id b13so1967334wgh.27 for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 04:48:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:mime-version:content-type:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to; bh=96tDvEvK/FQT1iCqPlJPxbe7l8rNG0r+XSexN88mo2o=; b=IgrTiybj/fznzvkka/hp+RHmv9qmyb5vkFMVGqgjpRvqtLPLACv9Vd+2MhcHPxkcpq YHlzvhBCNtrB9Ir807KoRDfpn+fvfS2F7TiOFP/vWxyu2GjLNWZRGEjrbfnYrBw02BGs vzRF5AZu1pr09jIbFadeCENVtIsFiZCPQXEol1xFr/YDlLF9w6gFrIr5J2PIzvedbpiK +/1Z0950S4D3vdsEPkwLiB8c0VAOFXqvxG1/eTnOOCjOwToC7AsfdrAI/J/WYIrGt+NJ JeOwbRK2bQYnnwiR4p3GTAbhOEw8uDRBCLtyRhh77psyNfSXpOxDf8aDO+ITX5MhzyS6 mBxw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkpneepuOhbvrHtTEP3tIaonaKqW1/XHFoI/qcXd8TD/6zsWLJhYuvMy4zkSRzh746z4rFe X-Received: by 10.194.77.167 with SMTP id t7mr11706460wjw.27.1381405711249; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 04:48:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.10.50] (243.Red-83-49-8.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net. [83.49.8.243]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id s4sm537608wiy.1.1969.12.31.16.00.00 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 10 Oct 2013 04:48:30 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 From: Jorge Chamorro In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 13:48:27 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <28BEFF52-6142-4972-84AC-DA0515DBC68C@jorgechamorro.com> References: <20131008234810.28645.8207.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E11531C3C187@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com> To: Tim Bray X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085) Cc: "Manger, James H" , Paul Hoffman , "json@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Json] Radically changing 4627bis X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 11:48:38 -0000 On 10/10/2013, at 01:32, Tim Bray wrote: > Thus there would be no benefit to a reader of -bis in making them go = anywhere else to learn the syntax because it=92s the same everywhere. The way I see it, from now on, the right place to go to read the syntax = is "The JSON Data Interchange Format", aka ECMA-404. --=20 ( Jorge )();= From paul.hoffman@vpnc.org Thu Oct 10 08:59:22 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7A0721E8056 for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 08:59:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.522 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.522 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.077, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wILijDm3HXT6 for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 08:59:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF08021E813B for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 08:59:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.20.30.90] (50-1-98-185.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.1.98.185]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id r9AFxBmi098103 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 10 Oct 2013 08:59:12 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: hoffman.proper.com: Host 50-1-98-185.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.1.98.185] claimed to be [10.20.30.90] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) From: Paul Hoffman In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 08:59:11 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <5789212A-8CFB-46C7-8ADA-2B1CD7B2E2D7@vpnc.org> References: <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E11531CC024B@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com> To: Tim Bray X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) Cc: "json@ietf.org WG" Subject: Re: [Json] {"Height": 125, "Width": "100"} example X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 15:59:22 -0000 On Oct 9, 2013, at 9:55 PM, Tim Bray wrote: > Don=92t know if it=92s a typo, but it=92s kind of charmingly = idiosyncratic and has lasted all these years... let=92s spare it.=20 I would rather fix it, given that it does hint at something wrong, = unnecessarily. --Paul Hoffman= From mamille2@cisco.com Thu Oct 10 09:20:22 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0442B11E8174 for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 09:20:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QIY+8gXnv4sy for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 09:20:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A712321F9EAF for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 09:20:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=6551; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1381422010; x=1382631610; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=6tGQXDbQe301rZ8F6DRKf7YP7XTBJRSFRvD3FfnnR0o=; b=BoiVo/KUKvHaTLUfVtJD6Yed+wjBoTh1dbcexHYEqwEc+9jZd8jLaKZz A0YbtGc3dmdYUqdbKjCYylt9LXU0IM2/fzx6oP8ht1x4vgo3iAzseDRwZ D4LINm9nei4FGWUuIQb7dVaK5/BWoAJOHi2En0b7snOoyj0HyUsXoqXlA E=; X-Files: smime.p7s : 4136 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ai8FAM/SVlKtJV2a/2dsb2JhbABZgweBCsEpgSMWdIIlAQEBAwF5BQsCAQgOFCQCMCUCBA4FCAaHcga6O48WMQeDH4EEA5ArgTCYLIMkgio X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.90,1073,1371081600"; d="p7s'?scan'208";a="270561593" Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 10 Oct 2013 16:20:10 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x15.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x15.cisco.com [173.36.12.89]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r9AGKAwq011469 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 10 Oct 2013 16:20:10 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x11.cisco.com ([169.254.6.119]) by xhc-aln-x15.cisco.com ([173.36.12.89]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 11:20:10 -0500 From: "Matt Miller (mamille2)" To: Tim Bray Thread-Topic: [Json] {"Height": 125, "Width": "100"} example Thread-Index: AQHOxXULhdybrgFMp0eD5/hiFZxwWpnuchMA Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 16:20:09 +0000 Message-ID: References: <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E11531CC024B@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [64.101.72.48] Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_67365423-498D-4B76-A947-472C38E1D02B"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "Manger, James H" , "json@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Json] {"Height": 125, "Width": "100"} example X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 16:20:22 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_67365423-498D-4B76-A947-472C38E1D02B Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 On Oct 9, 2013, at 10:55 PM, Tim Bray wrote: > Don=92t know if it=92s a typo, but it=92s kind of charmingly = idiosyncratic and has lasted all these years... let=92s spare it.=20 >=20 /me doffs hat Syntactically, the example is valid to the ABNF. Pedantically, some = people will get hung up on this seeming wrong. It's a nit, but I think = it's worth addressing. - m&m Matt Miller < mamille2@cisco.com > Cisco Systems, Inc. --Apple-Mail=_67365423-498D-4B76-A947-472C38E1D02B Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIMezCCBjQw ggQcoAMCAQICAR4wDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwfTELMAkGA1UEBhMCSUwxFjAUBgNVBAoTDVN0YXJ0 Q29tIEx0ZC4xKzApBgNVBAsTIlNlY3VyZSBEaWdpdGFsIENlcnRpZmljYXRlIFNpZ25pbmcxKTAn BgNVBAMTIFN0YXJ0Q29tIENlcnRpZmljYXRpb24gQXV0aG9yaXR5MB4XDTA3MTAyNDIxMDE1NVoX DTE3MTAyNDIxMDE1NVowgYwxCzAJBgNVBAYTAklMMRYwFAYDVQQKEw1TdGFydENvbSBMdGQuMSsw KQYDVQQLEyJTZWN1cmUgRGlnaXRhbCBDZXJ0aWZpY2F0ZSBTaWduaW5nMTgwNgYDVQQDEy9TdGFy dENvbSBDbGFzcyAxIFByaW1hcnkgSW50ZXJtZWRpYXRlIENsaWVudCBDQTCCASIwDQYJKoZIhvcN AQEBBQADggEPADCCAQoCggEBAMcJg8zOLdgasSmkLhOrlr6KMoOMpohBllVHrdRvEg/q6r8jR+EK 75xCGhR8ToREoqe7zM9/UnC6TS2y9UKTpT1v7RSMzR0t6ndl0TWBuUr/UXBhPk+Kmy7bI4yW4urC +y7P3/1/X7U8ocb8VpH/Clt+4iq7nirMcNh6qJR+xjOhV+VHzQMALuGYn5KZmc1NbJQYclsGkDxD z2UbFqE2+6vIZoL+jb9x4Pa5gNf1TwSDkOkikZB1xtB4ZqtXThaABSONdfmv/Z1pua3FYxnCFmdr /+N2JLKutIxMYqQOJebr/f/h5t95m4JgrM3Y/w7YX9d7YAL9jvN4SydHsU6n65cCAwEAAaOCAa0w ggGpMA8GA1UdEwEB/wQFMAMBAf8wDgYDVR0PAQH/BAQDAgEGMB0GA1UdDgQWBBRTcu2SnODaywFc fH6WNU7y1LhRgjAfBgNVHSMEGDAWgBROC+8apEBbpRdphzDKNGhD0EGu8jBmBggrBgEFBQcBAQRa MFgwJwYIKwYBBQUHMAGGG2h0dHA6Ly9vY3NwLnN0YXJ0c3NsLmNvbS9jYTAtBggrBgEFBQcwAoYh aHR0cDovL3d3dy5zdGFydHNzbC5jb20vc2ZzY2EuY3J0MFsGA1UdHwRUMFIwJ6AloCOGIWh0dHA6 Ly93d3cuc3RhcnRzc2wuY29tL3Nmc2NhLmNybDAnoCWgI4YhaHR0cDovL2NybC5zdGFydHNzbC5j b20vc2ZzY2EuY3JsMIGABgNVHSAEeTB3MHUGCysGAQQBgbU3AQIBMGYwLgYIKwYBBQUHAgEWImh0 dHA6Ly93d3cuc3RhcnRzc2wuY29tL3BvbGljeS5wZGYwNAYIKwYBBQUHAgEWKGh0dHA6Ly93d3cu c3RhcnRzc2wuY29tL2ludGVybWVkaWF0ZS5wZGYwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQADggIBAAqDCH14qywG XLhjjF6uHLkjd02hcdh9hrw+VUsv+q1eeQWB21jWj3kJ96AUlPCoEGZ/ynJNScWy6QMVQjbbMXlt UfO4n4bGGdKo3awPWp61tjAFgraLJgDk+DsSvUD6EowjMTNx25GQgyYJ5RPIzKKR9tQW8gGK+2+R HxkUCTbYFnL6kl8Ch507rUdPPipJ9CgJFws3kDS3gOS5WFMxcjO5DwKfKSETEPrHh7p5shuuNktv sv6hxHTLhiMKX893gxdT3XLS9OKmCv87vkINQcNEcIIoFWbP9HORz9v3vQwR4e3ksLc2JZOAFK+s sS5XMEoznzpihEP0PLc4dCBYjbvSD7kxgDwZ+Aj8Q9PkbvE9sIPP7ON0fz095HdThKjiVJe6vofq +n6b1NBc8XdrQvBmunwxD5nvtTW4vtN6VY7mUCmxsCieuoBJ9OlqmsVWQvifIYf40dJPZkk9YgGT zWLpXDSfLSplbY2LL9C9U0ptvjcDjefLTvqSFc7tw1sEhF0n/qpA2r0GpvkLRDmcSwVyPvmjFBGq Up/pNy8ZuPGQmHwFi2/14+xeSUDG2bwnsYJQG2EdJCB6luQ57GEnTA/yKZSTKI8dDQa8Sd3zfXb1 9mOgSF0bBdXbuKhEpuP9wirslFe6fQ1t5j5R0xi72MZ8ikMu1RQZKCyDbMwazlHiMIIGPzCCBSeg AwIBAgIDBoRIMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAMIGMMQswCQYDVQQGEwJJTDEWMBQGA1UEChMNU3RhcnRD b20gTHRkLjErMCkGA1UECxMiU2VjdXJlIERpZ2l0YWwgQ2VydGlmaWNhdGUgU2lnbmluZzE4MDYG A1UEAxMvU3RhcnRDb20gQ2xhc3MgMSBQcmltYXJ5IEludGVybWVkaWF0ZSBDbGllbnQgQ0EwHhcN MTMwNDMwMjE1NDQyWhcNMTQwNTAyMDUzOTA0WjBbMRkwFwYDVQQNExBiN2F6NndOY0t0R3JtMEpF MRswGQYDVQQDDBJtYW1pbGxlMkBjaXNjby5jb20xITAfBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWEm1hbWlsbGUyQGNp c2NvLmNvbTCCASIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADggEPADCCAQoCggEBAJbKBMsG+9UFTx9uq/bhhXgu vJvO8z7cwKaqqwZhVf5z/kHFyCNijtmTOE+YXjA8mWR4aoBwB5SvGypI/cJUofJ+AlBTC4g+RMx/ K0Ab4/jQqTQz9CDzMOB+Wm+rt8ZJ7A8ZzOJmNDAsf/VvB8l2A1SQz1UsAixgH16NTr8SlblAXEKk 4hwpCudUiNjjQokqJ0H686UBKVorcZSgXaza8XMqGtJF/8mNhR9GQYi7Xht1ky+9LFOrto2daZto KJRwMeVusVdHUeKEQSu7jztw8HchH3KEb7Q+r5X+hhDZoddfKE8d5eyPuhiZdrzv7OlNZ0fSLdx7 3AE3nx9/R5YlXucCAwEAAaOCAtgwggLUMAkGA1UdEwQCMAAwCwYDVR0PBAQDAgSwMB0GA1UdJQQW MBQGCCsGAQUFBwMCBggrBgEFBQcDBDAdBgNVHQ4EFgQUxGd+/qrdVudHrIKkw5xOMY7eaLUwHwYD VR0jBBgwFoAUU3Ltkpzg2ssBXHx+ljVO8tS4UYIwHQYDVR0RBBYwFIESbWFtaWxsZTJAY2lzY28u Y29tMIIBTAYDVR0gBIIBQzCCAT8wggE7BgsrBgEEAYG1NwECAzCCASowLgYIKwYBBQUHAgEWImh0 dHA6Ly93d3cuc3RhcnRzc2wuY29tL3BvbGljeS5wZGYwgfcGCCsGAQUFBwICMIHqMCcWIFN0YXJ0 Q29tIENlcnRpZmljYXRpb24gQXV0aG9yaXR5MAMCAQEagb5UaGlzIGNlcnRpZmljYXRlIHdhcyBp c3N1ZWQgYWNjb3JkaW5nIHRvIHRoZSBDbGFzcyAxIFZhbGlkYXRpb24gcmVxdWlyZW1lbnRzIG9m IHRoZSBTdGFydENvbSBDQSBwb2xpY3ksIHJlbGlhbmNlIG9ubHkgZm9yIHRoZSBpbnRlbmRlZCBw dXJwb3NlIGluIGNvbXBsaWFuY2Ugb2YgdGhlIHJlbHlpbmcgcGFydHkgb2JsaWdhdGlvbnMuMDYG A1UdHwQvMC0wK6ApoCeGJWh0dHA6Ly9jcmwuc3RhcnRzc2wuY29tL2NydHUxLWNybC5jcmwwgY4G CCsGAQUFBwEBBIGBMH8wOQYIKwYBBQUHMAGGLWh0dHA6Ly9vY3NwLnN0YXJ0c3NsLmNvbS9zdWIv Y2xhc3MxL2NsaWVudC9jYTBCBggrBgEFBQcwAoY2aHR0cDovL2FpYS5zdGFydHNzbC5jb20vY2Vy dHMvc3ViLmNsYXNzMS5jbGllbnQuY2EuY3J0MCMGA1UdEgQcMBqGGGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuc3RhcnRz c2wuY29tLzANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFAAOCAQEAlDhXbGEI7lbqUcu5r2JHZaMsbRZda/99ZqODzWGX 0llou9jGccsAWDPPwRRe2+ROpXfH4cuJZElTcLDeZSp/qpXKhjYieFSX8+Ml9sKEj5UOSqQLyoLk PtrIJV12Jk3nuG2Jc0UeEnGwK/aqtzy7+bfEVI0ziyVM2gChHh0RH74KyiwYWknbOTRIkZcz/ulE DVFQp63uj6wfmDNvAUHBAdhKVqA1S/rfP1KcDZpf1NfvwXJibiqTRA6K1EOxTJOP41n/XdvHqHXL RWL2xrOUI9/URANr/ok3OrsuZEMFnAAGefS1bWS/hFtUGVkHGiKEBbyDW7da2ULXbuC7umrQnzGC A28wggNrAgEBMIGUMIGMMQswCQYDVQQGEwJJTDEWMBQGA1UEChMNU3RhcnRDb20gTHRkLjErMCkG A1UECxMiU2VjdXJlIERpZ2l0YWwgQ2VydGlmaWNhdGUgU2lnbmluZzE4MDYGA1UEAxMvU3RhcnRD b20gQ2xhc3MgMSBQcmltYXJ5IEludGVybWVkaWF0ZSBDbGllbnQgQ0ECAwaESDAJBgUrDgMCGgUA oIIBrzAYBgkqhkiG9w0BCQMxCwYJKoZIhvcNAQcBMBwGCSqGSIb3DQEJBTEPFw0xMzEwMTAxNjIw MDlaMCMGCSqGSIb3DQEJBDEWBBQRna21tzjqHQO3UuJBe6ipHnvqlTCBpQYJKwYBBAGCNxAEMYGX MIGUMIGMMQswCQYDVQQGEwJJTDEWMBQGA1UEChMNU3RhcnRDb20gTHRkLjErMCkGA1UECxMiU2Vj dXJlIERpZ2l0YWwgQ2VydGlmaWNhdGUgU2lnbmluZzE4MDYGA1UEAxMvU3RhcnRDb20gQ2xhc3Mg MSBQcmltYXJ5IEludGVybWVkaWF0ZSBDbGllbnQgQ0ECAwaESDCBpwYLKoZIhvcNAQkQAgsxgZeg gZQwgYwxCzAJBgNVBAYTAklMMRYwFAYDVQQKEw1TdGFydENvbSBMdGQuMSswKQYDVQQLEyJTZWN1 cmUgRGlnaXRhbCBDZXJ0aWZpY2F0ZSBTaWduaW5nMTgwNgYDVQQDEy9TdGFydENvbSBDbGFzcyAx IFByaW1hcnkgSW50ZXJtZWRpYXRlIENsaWVudCBDQQIDBoRIMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUABIIBAC42 1mZObmDxBPwiMlizpXk51ZoCrmR9clidCtSRW5H7XppI5cEdcv57MGBM9RLpu5RZP3tWjdhO6A3u xgNuz8sAkMr1A4+592c2b9Of0bBDlIV2s6qu+L+1z90arj+6EvoZv9Slm1P4rSVB6Mmq06WoaWXr 1sU+MspgUMHv4+5pJ2hmoJ54nuLTYD6UCvxS9lwDMwj9kaBCMcfaULnyinWcw6Z84EnkK0I/AdyL 4V9NL1ZtDzI5iAoPCp/IpneszjXwgsFQLinIz5mQXTZgn7cCPFP73cbD8wrGSN2wQH76q6XfX+VT BiyDTD1i/C2scv6UyFZZO4liRxDcqaR+gzcAAAAAAAA= --Apple-Mail=_67365423-498D-4B76-A947-472C38E1D02B-- From tbray@textuality.com Thu Oct 10 09:35:48 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A92F21E8118 for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 09:35:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.823 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.823 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.153, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xEsT9r7-rIm2 for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 09:35:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vc0-f173.google.com (mail-vc0-f173.google.com [209.85.220.173]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76D1D21E8117 for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 09:35:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vc0-f173.google.com with SMTP id if17so1844973vcb.18 for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 09:35:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=o9aSfKo7oKorhZUxWn3ykgc7uQdk2zxW4CZ3bAuyUZ0=; b=L6oMkYNc+H6K6Dm6097lHk9HmpfSPT5i/qGnvIWnlQmZ9UG+gEwEtvo+iIAhhjegDu ArP9/YneqFRRBehtQ0ZLC4aSw85RRoIL8a//bjCjJoszTOOvRyRWLw0tDRX6D8fNgL7Z 3eg4bpwFXvCVMpPE1plQvpUFevOlnMpEK4oDqTxPdam7TD6aDdvj9Hg7VEuX0ucK29HJ t41E9tq/PoYy4aNlDSoQwbxBk5P9ChRnmwfqVnkZq3YbwibLJa2vWmMsQ85bfLXApZ0M L2D5s4dGhq7+cj5DTeTm7fg/L7wvAq/aCPP/R4D9KYpJVoEMhsBGmdV4eUtoMG0Y2e3I BrgQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQllfwYvq2YfDJxvTDK6VdEYKvHFZgkymuMEhkXIWFUCHILndM1+4nYVJ6BotX917f8vgSCa MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.220.11.7 with SMTP id r7mr15406467vcr.12.1381422939841; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 09:35:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.174.197 with HTTP; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 09:35:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [24.84.235.32] In-Reply-To: References: <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E11531CC024B@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com> Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 09:35:39 -0700 Message-ID: From: Tim Bray To: "Matt Miller (mamille2)" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3e47c9d3dec04e86597fe Cc: "Manger, James H" , "json@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Json] {"Height": 125, "Width": "100"} example X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 16:35:48 -0000 --001a11c3e47c9d3dec04e86597fe Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable OK, OK. You guys are no fun. On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 9:20 AM, Matt Miller (mamille2) wrote: > > On Oct 9, 2013, at 10:55 PM, Tim Bray wrote: > > > Don=E2=80=99t know if it=E2=80=99s a typo, but it=E2=80=99s kind of cha= rmingly idiosyncratic and > has lasted all these years... let=E2=80=99s spare it. > > > > /me doffs hat > > Syntactically, the example is valid to the ABNF. Pedantically, some > people will get hung up on this seeming wrong. It's a nit, but I think > it's worth addressing. > > > - m&m > > Matt Miller < mamille2@cisco.com > > Cisco Systems, Inc. > > --001a11c3e47c9d3dec04e86597fe Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
OK, OK.=C2=A0 You guys are no fun.


On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 9:2= 0 AM, Matt Miller (mamille2) <mamille2@cisco.com> wrote:

On Oct 9, 2013, at 10:55 PM, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> wrote:

> Don=E2=80=99t know if it=E2=80=99s a typo, but it=E2=80=99s kind of ch= armingly idiosyncratic and has lasted all these years... let=E2=80=99s spar= e it.
>

/me doffs hat

Syntactically, the example is valid to the ABNF. =C2=A0Pedantically, some p= eople will get hung up on this seeming wrong. =C2=A0It's a nit, but I t= hink it's worth addressing.


- m&m

Matt Miller < mamille2@cisco.com >
Cisco Systems, Inc.


--001a11c3e47c9d3dec04e86597fe-- From tbray@textuality.com Thu Oct 10 16:06:43 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3581421E815B for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 16:06:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.105 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.105 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.129, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xosfTd6VfsLl for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 16:06:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vb0-f51.google.com (mail-vb0-f51.google.com [209.85.212.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FC8F21E80B2 for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 16:06:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vb0-f51.google.com with SMTP id x16so2230014vbf.10 for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 16:06:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=SzLI250pYyrb2mtlAsVO5CzQlRljbSiAfmFuRo5RHCk=; b=U3KZbXQJ6YPMaOvJXOmYd8OpArBhvNB3fiQaRwgGOpLfIGAEbMPwiqcbLbEWSWgfA+ bjZfp/hAsoEiUuXArwq5yhtZe5T3Hub3jjhF/E61XMd1EcMjh6B7Saoh0uyzu9ZGZqbz 7qg4iAI6CuQQS2kLhSHvVPOLoOiB5AANpFZko85nmR8DZTXpH6MVW0gAJwZlF9lTZBJw /2w4ZZDE8CZtynosMSj774axqXBzb4uDhutYMGuOAJORoZ4zb0JUu8PWQ1rggDzQhYPf kyuLXmPbwA4bypWKulSnA/Yv0WFN/GcHCZmmeTekLiCz5sCzY+AnCPP0K6QQ5oaRa92D 3OnQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl7SL67XoyjvXm5aK+BSXZY9QezESmfqs131E1Vp2aHQziSSLIK9tsqhFYkV4R18FehzQrQ MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.52.236.196 with SMTP id uw4mr10233040vdc.96.1381446396631; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 16:06:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.174.197 with HTTP; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 16:06:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [96.49.81.176] Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 16:06:36 -0700 Message-ID: From: Tim Bray To: "json@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01176227bf758804e86b0d72 Subject: [Json] ABNF formatting X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 23:06:43 -0000 --089e01176227bf758804e86b0d72 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hey, the formatting on the =E2=80=9Cws=E2=80=9D production in the draft AB= NF looks gross... my inclination would be to move the closing paren up after %x0D. But I=E2=80=99m not an IETF-ABNF-formatting expert. If there are any of tho= se out there, maybe you could have an opinion on this and cast a critical eye around and shout about anything else that needs polishing? --089e01176227bf758804e86b0d72 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hey,=C2=A0 the formatting on the =E2=80=9Cws=E2=80=9D prod= uction in the draft ABNF looks gross... my inclination would be to move the= closing paren up after %x0D.=C2=A0 But I=E2=80=99m not an IETF-ABNF-format= ting expert. If there are any of those out there, maybe you could have an o= pinion on this and cast a critical eye around and shout about anything else= that needs polishing?
--089e01176227bf758804e86b0d72-- From johnl@iecc.com Thu Oct 10 18:42:11 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F252B21E8181 for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 18:42:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.293 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.293 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.307, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JOMGmMx3+w3v for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 18:42:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AA4121E8176 for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 18:42:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 75006 invoked from network); 11 Oct 2013 01:42:04 -0000 Received: from leila.iecc.com (64.57.183.34) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 11 Oct 2013 01:42:04 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=5257576c.xn--i8sz2z.k1309; i=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=X6dOVlZBAsXuwIlozee4l53UPJLpqWQC4W+JIpBaKlA=; b=BNdk0Gc1oSF9Qkp1L9Ur5tLOlyDgerLuWivJ97kOLqzSQPfOCCOZr3eqSvs0O0zgLc2zx6DMsqlLYZJwoG5xEzgqFkCzGUxy5PmzsNdT+cLPoyK6sR3Alu4wViaJxPXqZ+LazuQc+MdQgbSAGd0Zh1QxOMQQOM8qtwQ5jo8j0Zm8qNDrffhpA3Xh7zwZKe6fRCFLZL2Z0BAowkdRc8BWEzTqZbaYOhcChgEBS6KQuwjVAvwwQ4gLXbaGXxuywkQU DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=5257576c.xn--i8sz2z.k1309; olt=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=X6dOVlZBAsXuwIlozee4l53UPJLpqWQC4W+JIpBaKlA=; b=PX/aRF9BXdm04mnsnIG7RK5LI90kf5irNNE48aai0QcOC8eNcTATbgztjKiFdkJlqDvBd84nuh7IAaKBQbJqOV0zxvjuho/hJ5IqgK0KHIimbQi1qI77R8ktTSRO6PMJnC/dh/b61T7Rkx9y5Vx23GQE5vp9wC207pfTflRF5vua0d62RSidQo6LxuMwDLe//dOoYXuDDfd413bRTg6o+09/mkG30EbLTcX0QWXehqIoC+stELiiVQCsmmOXznEn Date: 11 Oct 2013 01:41:41 -0000 Message-ID: <20131011014141.15895.qmail@joyce.lan> From: "John Levine" To: json@ietf.org In-Reply-To: Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit Cc: mamille2@cisco.com Subject: Re: [Json] REMINDER - WGLC Ends 2013-10-11 X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 01:42:11 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 This draft is ready to publish. I have a few editorial comments, none of which I think would be contentious. Section 1.2 says: Object; thus, for example, "Hello world!", "42", and "true" would all be valid JSON texts in the ECMAScript 5.1 context. My guess is that the quotes are intended to be part of "Hello world!" but not part of 42 or true. Dunno how to fix that other than perhaps to display them, e.g. Object; thus, for example, these would all be valid JSON texts in the ECMAScript 5.1 context: "Hello world!" 42 true Please move section 1.4, the list of changes, to the end. I think that most people will be more interested in the JSON spec rather than the minutiae of what's changed. Section 9 has some upper case MAY and some lower case. It should probably be consistent one way or the other. I realize this is currently unchanged from 4627. In section 11, the Published specification should be this document, not RFC 4627. Since this is standards track, shouldn't the change controller now be the IETF? R's, John -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.21 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAlJXV2oACgkQkEiFRdeC/kVapgCeIERm3QfwTBxFq5AxTmUpPKQT 85gAniYwpILyl3iYeppy1KW9VhmxINJR =8rQb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From tbray@textuality.com Thu Oct 10 19:30:15 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 032F321E8197 for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 19:30:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.84 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.84 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.136, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jFOg2J1WNJWt for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 19:30:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lb0-f181.google.com (mail-lb0-f181.google.com [209.85.217.181]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C51F21E8196 for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 19:30:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lb0-f181.google.com with SMTP id u14so2808244lbd.40 for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 19:30:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=dpHmjwJwEozKKsGOO3UkgsItyRzQK8AQolTzvR8U0eo=; b=GeqTf+RrQQt2ASEcQ8TGruByapF3+sbPGCqytzOqCnnt567CAPg7koezOdWXGD0Gzn p6cQ6J1yq29Toq8JKboPJZ3rYw1Lel5wr/hj7DxHoLqhXaRsWQbqgkfFE7YrGW/6s+3E r4vmzWCi8ZUKHxsQG9aTNkPypbkyaKhT4iIyGaOp6Vy2NIBNhLtIr/SPtF5ekgVY5Akk QljF6jj61L2/h0659e24VNV82xxXfoa2x0qKCxFOpwLTrULVi6xFjOxDUyIRQawwiFE8 ZuMVEonlQv1psMJVkbOdynf3Knkh7PyH6J4InUH+/sshQmiDJKbYlVkZw+pMMY2SBPa8 ZpPw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnt30XNpjs0FxXLpfRh4c3U00LewHCyTaxbOZ9vkzSF0diC61ZW4og0cIYKMAhUmbeWEkja MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.2.4 with SMTP id 4mr14107934laq.0.1381458607334; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 19:30:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.10.200 with HTTP; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 19:30:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [24.84.235.32] In-Reply-To: <20131011014141.15895.qmail@joyce.lan> References: <20131011014141.15895.qmail@joyce.lan> Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 19:30:07 -0700 Message-ID: From: Tim Bray To: John Levine Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0112c51c8ff73604e86de510 Cc: Matthew Miller , "json@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Json] REMINDER - WGLC Ends 2013-10-11 X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 02:30:15 -0000 --089e0112c51c8ff73604e86de510 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I=E2=80=99m OK with John=E2=80=99s changes, except for the MAY variation in= section 9. The second half, with all the instances of lower-case =E2=80=9Cmay=E2=80=9D, is= talking about implementation behavior. I had read it as advice for the reader as for what implementations might do. So turning those into MAY means that they normatively describe behavior of conforming implementations. Are we really OK with that? My instinct is that, since this spec has held together pretty well all these years, why don=E2=80=99t we leave this alone? -T On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 6:41 PM, John Levine wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > This draft is ready to publish. I have a few editorial comments, > none of which I think would be contentious. > > Section 1.2 says: > > Object; thus, for example, "Hello world!", "42", and "true" would all > be valid JSON texts in the ECMAScript 5.1 context. > > My guess is that the quotes are intended to be part of "Hello world!" > but not part of 42 or true. Dunno how to fix that other than perhaps > to display them, e.g. > > Object; thus, for example, these would all > be valid JSON texts in the ECMAScript 5.1 context: > > "Hello world!" > 42 > true > > Please move section 1.4, the list of changes, to the end. I think > that most people will be more interested in the JSON spec rather > than the minutiae of what's changed. > > Section 9 has some upper case MAY and some lower case. It should > probably be consistent one way or the other. I realize this is > currently unchanged from 4627. > > In section 11, the Published specification should be this document, > not RFC 4627. Since this is standards track, shouldn't the change > controller now be the IETF? > > R's, > John > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v2.0.21 (FreeBSD) > > iEYEARECAAYFAlJXV2oACgkQkEiFRdeC/kVapgCeIERm3QfwTBxFq5AxTmUpPKQT > 85gAniYwpILyl3iYeppy1KW9VhmxINJR > =3D8rQb > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > _______________________________________________ > json mailing list > json@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json > --089e0112c51c8ff73604e86de510 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I=E2=80=99m OK with John=E2=80=99s changes, except for the= MAY variation in section 9.=C2=A0 The second half, with all the instances = of lower-case =E2=80=9Cmay=E2=80=9D, is talking about implementation behavi= or.=C2=A0 I had read it as advice for the reader as for what implementation= s might do.=C2=A0 So turning those into MAY means that they normatively des= cribe behavior of conforming implementations.=C2=A0 Are we really OK with t= hat?=C2=A0 My instinct is that, since this spec has held together pretty we= ll all these years, why don=E2=80=99t we leave this alone?=C2=A0 -T


On Thu,= Oct 10, 2013 at 6:41 PM, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:=
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

This draft is ready to publish. =C2=A0I have a few editorial comments,
none of which I think would be contentious.

Section 1.2 says:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0Object; thus, for example, "Hello world!", "42&= quot;, and "true" would all
=C2=A0 =C2=A0be valid JSON texts in the ECMAScript 5.1 context.

My guess is that the quotes are intended to be part of "Hello world!&q= uot;
but not part of 42 or true. =C2=A0Dunno how to fix that other than perhaps<= br> to display them, e.g.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0Object; thus, for example, these would all
=C2=A0 =C2=A0be valid JSON texts in the ECMAScript 5.1 context:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 "Hello world!"
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 42
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 true

Please move section 1.4, the list of changes, to the end. =C2=A0I think
that most people will be more interested in the JSON spec rather
than the minutiae of what's changed.

Section 9 has some upper case MAY and some lower case. =C2=A0It should
probably be consistent one way or the other. =C2=A0I realize this is
currently unchanged from 4627.

In section 11, the Published specification should be this document,
not RFC 4627. =C2=A0Since this is standards track, shouldn't the change=
controller now be the IETF?

R's,
John
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.21 (FreeBSD)

iEYEARECAAYFAlJXV2oACgkQkEiFRdeC/kVapgCeIERm3QfwTBxFq5AxTmUpPKQT
85gAniYwpILyl3iYeppy1KW9VhmxINJR
=3D8rQb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
json mailing list
json@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json

--089e0112c51c8ff73604e86de510-- From paul.hoffman@vpnc.org Thu Oct 10 19:33:31 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B7B611E810D for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 19:33:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.527 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.527 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.072, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V+42J6kvAUTI for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 19:33:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A59611E810E for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 19:33:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.20.30.90] (50-1-98-185.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.1.98.185]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id r9B2XRu0018548 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 10 Oct 2013 19:33:28 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: hoffman.proper.com: Host 50-1-98-185.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.1.98.185] claimed to be [10.20.30.90] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) From: Paul Hoffman In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 19:33:27 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <67D6E87F-45F6-4C8F-B9D4-5672780C0925@vpnc.org> References: <20131011014141.15895.qmail@joyce.lan> To: Tim Bray X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) Cc: "json@ietf.org" , John Levine , Matthew Miller Subject: Re: [Json] REMINDER - WGLC Ends 2013-10-11 X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 02:33:31 -0000 On Oct 10, 2013, at 7:30 PM, Tim Bray wrote: > I=92m OK with John=92s changes, except for the MAY variation in = section 9. The second half, with all the instances of lower-case =93may=94= , is talking about implementation behavior. I had read it as advice for = the reader as for what implementations might do. So turning those into = MAY means that they normatively describe behavior of conforming = implementations. Are we really OK with that? My instinct is that, = since this spec has held together pretty well all these years, why don=92t= we leave this alone? -T Either is fine. The use of RFC 2119 MAYs are a humorously fertile = flowerbed of contention. --Paul Hoffman= From johnl@taugh.com Thu Oct 10 19:38:49 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25F5E21E80C4 for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 19:38:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.323 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.323 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.276, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id N7-91b0yvbbn for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 19:38:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B437321F9E3A for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 19:38:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 85910 invoked from network); 11 Oct 2013 02:38:43 -0000 Received: from leila.iecc.com (64.57.183.34) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 11 Oct 2013 02:38:43 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent:cleverness; s=525764b3.xn--3zv.k1309; i=sendmail-bs@submit.iecc.com; bh=tUk5FRB0149cpO51n84m03FyIlYseiEVZKVNuhCyqeU=; b=cvgHj/c1DFL2ResrG9CW2PrES7uDm1AvFAHs63d5KledKY2z/zaLd5t+FeWOpNxHTXju2t6mTL2SyZWjP+UQs7aUy2bd4OHD3L9nR9GjbKsrx2KfmzuOnu/zVo/gBa3bHp96lHWWFek6Q9ppZ8iYRjzNLN6VEeFnqLYZiSw6PaDaHm66aFWMMthAsraF0EnEBMMKa8F7pVyF8ssda8H1GGS92mst4nlSNINdpv6hAARJVDayaslIfFZyOLN3nOEc DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent:cleverness; s=525764b3.xn--3zv.k1309; olt=sendmail-bs@submit.iecc.com; bh=tUk5FRB0149cpO51n84m03FyIlYseiEVZKVNuhCyqeU=; b=Q1pRNvivhpcTTvQPD1TzazmVrOLQmYdA29n9dYLZ1m5hnDvlayoIC6NDGY4ECx3czBKJR2Iwo+Vl4+0r8siF3auQCL7M6yAhtySzR01VeSHfyOtnUGVRCH8RFX2KdfbPhrFvlRlyJ0kaz8MFWfKkLnibeNF9p+9upU1aJjlGg/VNaptpxOj3Cl2JJ6wKntTH072rwJj/kj7QxEb42yk/hgTQ9+JKrxhdCxtpVxK8MKkBRiQf5qDXaB2ah7LrcV6h Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 11 Oct 2013 02:38:42 -0000 Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 22:38:42 -0400 (EDT) From: John R Levine To: Tim Bray In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20131011014141.15895.qmail@joyce.lan> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) Cleverness: None detected MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="3825401791-1403417127-1381459122=:16135" Cc: "json@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Json] REMINDER - WGLC Ends 2013-10-11 X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 02:38:49 -0000 This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --3825401791-1403417127-1381459122=:16135 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT > I’m OK with John’s changes, except for the MAY variation in section 9. The > second half, with all the instances of lower-case “may”, is talking about > implementation behavior. I had read it as advice for the reader as for > what implementations might do. So turning those into MAY means that they > normatively describe behavior of conforming implementations. Are we really > OK with that? My instinct is that, since this spec has held together > pretty well all these years, why don’t we leave this alone? -T There is a somewhat theological argument that if you use 2119 language at all, the capital and lower case versions of the magic words are equally normative. You could avoid that by writing around it, e.g. An implementation might set limits on the size of texts that it accepts. An implementation might set limits on the maximum depth of nesting. An implementation might set limits on the range and precision of numbers. An implementation might set limits on the length and character contents of strings. R's, John PS: There's another argument that since informational RFCs aren't normative, 4627 shouldn't have used 2119 language at all, but that horse is long since water under the barn. --3825401791-1403417127-1381459122=:16135-- From nico@cryptonector.com Fri Oct 11 12:33:45 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37B7511E817F for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 12:33:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.162 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.162 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.185, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id agZZF1WyNk0X for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 12:33:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from homiemail-a111.g.dreamhost.com (caiajhbdccah.dreamhost.com [208.97.132.207]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5615011E8179 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 12:33:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from homiemail-a111.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a111.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 408342005D906 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 12:33:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h= mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; s= cryptonector.com; bh=gWg33q65gL1yxabhOdU0QKA/xgo=; b=ynEsbGeqgfo f0yQTw4UCwvD0DogArxDgCGrIDmfFtH4jKPj3HeyHU5p6Q0J0Qkwy55KA2b+Z9WQ UmcKrqRuHE+s8t4b5uC1EcGfPfr8RZ8dCbu++SIEFonhXCZz/ct04Q3kkRsISzJH Sr+KjBg1nzhAATTOfic+r4gsZJylk2Mo= Received: from mail-we0-f180.google.com (mail-we0-f180.google.com [74.125.82.180]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by homiemail-a111.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DF4282005D907 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 12:33:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-we0-f180.google.com with SMTP id q59so4608567wes.25 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 12:33:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=ygc4Hleb96XFu2nBAIKQgrxZ070a2Zvsf6IxdqBvRRQ=; b=KQDPfb9PPqo4Hebrk/7Z6ES/1qLN8NL5x2GUt0JM3PrGBdP1LJKvwrq9nfGfybnS1k xTxeBZvFcFYgtGRo1yIuLbNheX16aTKr+sJQkkHX3NxTnVpNlY+plGztXLCH3XuxqVbt yHMDb8Ap5o3ethGuvYD+tqhCghUy1NntRct3/FQ5kZjOtJ3vJQcyu/0GcRh98vk4wUk0 ORAxdHw64dvr2pqNpINCdcACeZmNfabEg6goCBQ4xd/QNqZK3eqr7J2vsiQfoMULPgpJ 5D15V9hG7lKNwqpzP5JgvlZqGpfyQdo4+QUzZoFIZ8YrCr0tc7omQtiBTERqBBTNN7/U 7Nhw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.20.202 with SMTP id p10mr15794479wje.39.1381520017149; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 12:33:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.165.5 with HTTP; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 12:33:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 14:33:37 -0500 Message-ID: From: Nico Williams To: "json@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: [Json] WGLC comment regarding top-level values X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 19:33:45 -0000 Add this to the ABNF in section 2: A JSON-text in ECMAScript's version of JSON is any value, with optional whitespace. Note that this is not the form that is intended in application/json; parsers of JSON texts -in the context of the application/json MIME media type- are free (and expected) to reject JSON texts that are not objects or arrays. JSON-text-ECMA = ws value ws Nico -- From nico@cryptonector.com Fri Oct 11 12:35:43 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D83D11E8184 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 12:35:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.985 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.985 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.008, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NDa8T-3r2B75 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 12:35:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from homiemail-a34.g.dreamhost.com (caiajhbdcbbj.dreamhost.com [208.97.132.119]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC37E11E812F for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 12:35:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from homiemail-a34.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a34.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16F2F10062 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 12:35:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h= mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; s= cryptonector.com; bh=oN5NB7wvzQcx2Qvs3g+IXzeYFUE=; b=PZMnkzY+YpE gMtrzMhgMi5iK5ARbML29FMc+ZZHonOilhgtUm15Ifg63QgwW3yUf7BZ5oUjSIiC QvnbPGaWHhO0aO0ayRckt97RoJ36Q/lhIy8340c6ImrZblnElr1d0HY5jfD31sa+ bQWZ3cfmvc/MSFPKwxFHn3goQ8ZZnCrM= Received: from mail-wi0-f175.google.com (mail-wi0-f175.google.com [209.85.212.175]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by homiemail-a34.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AC6C21005D for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 12:35:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wi0-f175.google.com with SMTP id ez12so1635069wid.8 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 12:35:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=LOyAWgPgrW5WzWSiZYDBaUijfpZeifr8kknGqfTyUlc=; b=kH9EmhaOoqmWKnkt0FMWfn5ShapuEfHAM9vsVlpCfexB9QOTi2VVf2CInyYYGjBkl6 c3tbSkV4tCVciqXLVUX46AL4dEtM6+5LWjOKDdHTgJQbBGiEKaKw+gWbbtmRqT7K6yF+ GkmrIwh1a/cxxkpNGYdHiEVzW21T3uoU9zudQXlsn28lVLl2HKYuytAbZO051hm/3aMa 8zPe8X/puKzwIar8r9sODRZTWBIW8JOwFp4VYbFD2NtDV8dZ2hLM//UKYN6l3LOo4mq8 Z2zgWwbmda1paiB2+ZBa53GynnT9WTD5xfDPe1rKZ4blVejrE1JmCVxNNaJav21HbdSY sVIQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.20.202 with SMTP id p10mr15801000wje.39.1381520131790; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 12:35:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.165.5 with HTTP; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 12:35:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 14:35:31 -0500 Message-ID: From: Nico Williams To: "json@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: [Json] WGLC comment about numeric values X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 19:35:43 -0000 Note that when such software is used, numbers which are integers and are in the range [-(2**53)+1, (2**53)-1] are interoperable in the sense that implementations will agree exactly on their numeric values. s/implementations will/implementations most likely will/ (Because there are implementations that only support 32-bit integers.) From nico@cryptonector.com Fri Oct 11 12:36:55 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C60211E8174 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 12:36:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.984 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.984 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.007, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WNEgGsjod+Cl for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 12:36:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from homiemail-a97.g.dreamhost.com (caiajhbdcbbj.dreamhost.com [208.97.132.119]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F95C11E8184 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 12:36:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from homiemail-a97.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a97.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77C1A28605B for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 12:36:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h= mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; s= cryptonector.com; bh=6g7fhQTX/k5rj71bdVlTrU00dZc=; b=OQt/1D5XC1v 9FnmtuTuPzcTYw7VyqLXOEwoh7q4tOz4EXrnZIuIV+ok+3r4WPUV+9v2MUq2dGiN x7cXIR+PLEeSoQ/wiuNPY6sfoHWnSRowrzpSKURduZ+xtfngZEaEIVKDHW93k4to iT/uOSGt6yqCFBVlYfqxLPKi0wBNUfEQ= Received: from mail-wi0-f170.google.com (mail-wi0-f170.google.com [209.85.212.170]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by homiemail-a97.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0E70A286059 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 12:36:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wi0-f170.google.com with SMTP id l12so1683236wiv.5 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 12:36:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=EsZNkN5DxBYjDpM0ELtiWtS11URwooVd1Nk5r6nM3n0=; b=XZ4cnVOk4a3m6NlvXnwPhhMB8Vq2TN+zW6TkyqR5zQcHa0PdPNLMfsHSe9ItMEECvr s2jyRzZO4Bym8KWa5ZtMMto0Y1quiBYxnvH/9NGZDhCFKphdb1C6gQ4pJupkvB1tyk+3 fAi7DgXSRikribAEH/xdIa9p/t9WGvV74fvwI6F02ArMVDfGsREaoMZ6d9xA/9cINjDs eJaqELsqqhI6kwbC310ZpImKAumMA3bw1irayzAW/jL8NuC1d5l3ROs8AJjw/KVY18Q4 RO7fiNWhbi1QhS4mYazx9x1S9C/fchLPIwSNAwI2pbGH/P1GNnqymyzf9IeWZv4nel0Z 7Vjw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.99.3 with SMTP id em3mr4692625wib.4.1381520184653; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 12:36:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.165.5 with HTTP; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 12:36:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 14:36:24 -0500 Message-ID: From: Nico Williams To: "json@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: [Json] WGLC nit X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 19:36:56 -0000 The ABNF rule for ws is not consistently indented. From nico@cryptonector.com Fri Oct 11 12:48:05 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCBD221F9EED for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 12:48:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.153 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.153 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.176, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OWlMzpuXUuCn for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 12:48:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from homiemail-a31.g.dreamhost.com (caiajhbdcahe.dreamhost.com [208.97.132.74]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFE1621F9A8D for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 12:47:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from homiemail-a31.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a31.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71668202043 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 12:47:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h= mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; s= cryptonector.com; bh=gMgfrAEZ0Suov+fkWhovQKMK96U=; b=YvTmIj8T2lA xw+Yhke7PPatOJh3H6ERJmrjd0sCpv3EbjtRSkp5FzGcV3XwX7x2cBAzSKJ0uoEt rjdJsOdCCFT4Fee+Qqt9W8P4KfxbmP3hlYx4ZzbVV9UtKaOXKlJEtmR2opyLU4Kg IS90BTUfBYaVmViN1cIbaqHxsE/YuBME= Received: from mail-we0-f173.google.com (mail-we0-f173.google.com [74.125.82.173]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by homiemail-a31.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 14D50202022 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 12:47:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-we0-f173.google.com with SMTP id u57so4763198wes.32 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 12:47:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=iec1bl5JFNoViAtKsl+VWIZgRjUocwNYI7OdSG3f2lg=; b=P5ozZw68YSzekFUP1ATDxrfUxuCsY65SMKY33nDWYN7bpdca5RCra59XBpt1Z6yBWa LmLOtGeIIfTSWkORPWNHn6FhHd2PM9BAfdZjH12UJm1a7ay+IP87HyBPs+kR8hm0otmc inHYrVLfweSpdIh+UHY+E2dnAzvyCPUfNemfaHjL0cAFFvFj+ABGdGMstPyEsanFhVsy 63MEcKbjZw0nXmjfQPQq1TxWob4lX7R/Lc/2FRiKGcbd8U3A1aDKnfM73YIgR8OhD3PH jkcTxerIBXdjzlpgcQjJjo/g+spFfeIk/Wau+3aHpRic3MxmgRDPECGcUrD/YiY3Jopt gLdw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.99.3 with SMTP id em3mr4727458wib.4.1381520877665; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 12:47:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.165.5 with HTTP; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 12:47:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 14:47:57 -0500 Message-ID: From: Nico Williams To: "json@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: [Json] WGLC comment: ready to publish X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 19:48:05 -0000 Aside from my other three comments sent just now, the I-D is ready to publish. Nico -- From tbray@textuality.com Fri Oct 11 13:51:49 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E17211E80F9 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 13:51:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.086 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.086 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.110, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ud2yVVh7BuaC for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 13:51:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vc0-f176.google.com (mail-vc0-f176.google.com [209.85.220.176]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AB7F11E819A for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 13:51:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vc0-f176.google.com with SMTP id ik5so1195993vcb.21 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 13:51:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=A9RtEOK8L1VJnpaNjfpzYk02Bqb/9exxTtQzgRpJ6jE=; b=AvcnUF8DtaTqqZxFAT1jZDdPzs3pDcZI8yOJhEo8GUjwXcXUkjfRV9sCpXQF16XNy5 ggYvma85ac59+gLGqUtvBp60oQyd/rttdHEc+SPy+lAMOxwwdlq8PTwwGVftKj5NdmCK mUKioLey2xKZopUehLjWwUQn+VPqNH0fQYofU8prYjCpDrqE3CY328Tsx2EWLqdQvArN AVgL7lMF/jJHUUOxgr2wpxZE6PDJSi4h/KQM7tqp2CC7peU9RHZqcEL5DvyWHWmcOULA +uZlvQxrJdU/Q8fgd5xQwxzltY7VrByzGqNQbUAttRVhgYvPF/rSJKpDadJYB1fAoZKt 8FDQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQldPPkbneiBKsSFgVWj6jB58KAGd6Iuk6uGNBVUVQoXgmrdzsGSw4ejijUVcJ+BSCxclsRE MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.52.231.5 with SMTP id tc5mr2306974vdc.36.1381524701783; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 13:51:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.174.197 with HTTP; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 13:51:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [96.49.81.176] In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 13:51:41 -0700 Message-ID: From: Tim Bray To: Nico Williams Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01176b43193d1304e87d49b5 Cc: "json@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Json] WGLC comment about numeric values X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 20:51:49 -0000 --089e01176b43193d1304e87d49b5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Actually, I think the language should be adjusted to say, rather than generally =E2=80=9Csupports IEEE754=E2=80=9D, more specifically =E2=80=9Csu= pports IEEE765 64-bit binary (double precision) numbers. Then the rest falls into place. On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Nico Williams wrot= e: > Note that when such software is used, numbers which are integers and > are in the range [-(2**53)+1, (2**53)-1] are interoperable in the > sense that implementations will agree exactly on their numeric > values. > > s/implementations will/implementations most likely will/ > > (Because there are implementations that only support 32-bit integers.) > _______________________________________________ > json mailing list > json@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json > --089e01176b43193d1304e87d49b5 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Actually, I think the language should be adjusted to say, = rather than generally =E2=80=9Csupports IEEE754=E2=80=9D, more specifically= =E2=80=9Csupports IEEE765 64-bit binary (double precision) numbers.=C2=A0 = Then the rest falls into place.


On Fri,= Oct 11, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>= ; wrote:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0Note that when such software is= used, numbers which are integers and
=C2=A0 =C2=A0are in the range [-(2**53)+1, (2**53)-1] are interoperable in = the
=C2=A0 =C2=A0sense that implementations will agree exactly on their numeric=
=C2=A0 =C2=A0values.

s/implementations will/implementations most likely will/

(Because there are implementations that only support 32-bit integers.)
_______________________________________________
json mailing list
json@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json

--089e01176b43193d1304e87d49b5-- From tbray@textuality.com Fri Oct 11 13:53:01 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F160221F9C12 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 13:53:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.073 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.073 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.097, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PotPHhw7PBBw for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 13:52:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vb0-f42.google.com (mail-vb0-f42.google.com [209.85.212.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BEB311E817C for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 13:52:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vb0-f42.google.com with SMTP id e12so3225704vbg.1 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 13:52:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=xQcit4Uoc7f4HMFzwKolAuwAOP7ea7/WOH7DUl9Pasw=; b=N7P4I7fIZ6QpwDLuCDiqc5Nek65KLhdqeMTRhwpIUdSeE9uj9ckuMFyQuaylbDUPF7 7vTPZNS0t/KSys49voWeGg2BVwm5KhvFnIr9096aTXucKjX33aZKsv22EJEpT2WdJqfy PnREqBzqWQOh92E+Q8MaUcTMO0psReh804NpcuWomLnPCR95bpULxAUJliGOlFjrGf1K eoB50oyHnGpXsXcLbm0gBwu1suynQ+D0Bw2ynRCoqoPxeJExl+QYHqVvEAxgs6D1cMgA GhW6iPqNctdO5NM0Z+XNQ71yrO/G0yTCu8weqjvP9ya0IgXieDKBQkRLONj7NcP2uPIq LbjA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmHc4O6qpysNjDv2I67Inun2Nqt0CnGQCEcXyv08mFs+YO+bwftQL5THcDaeDMhS5TCTIWC MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.220.105.199 with SMTP id u7mr22113358vco.1.1381524754621; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 13:52:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.174.197 with HTTP; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 13:52:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [96.49.81.176] In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 13:52:34 -0700 Message-ID: From: Tim Bray To: Nico Williams Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b343eca3f79f604e87d4cc5 Cc: "json@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Json] WGLC nit X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 20:53:01 -0000 --047d7b343eca3f79f604e87d4cc5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Well, it=E2=80=99s consistent with the rule for =E2=80=9Cchar=E2=80=9D. I= =E2=80=99m really reluctant to get into beautifying this stuff. On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Nico Williams wrot= e: > The ABNF rule for ws is not consistently indented. > _______________________________________________ > json mailing list > json@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json > --047d7b343eca3f79f604e87d4cc5 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Well, it=E2=80=99s consistent with the rule for =E2=80=9Cc= har=E2=80=9D.=C2=A0 I=E2=80=99m really reluctant to get into beautifying th= is stuff.


On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Nico Williams &l= t;nico@cryptonec= tor.com> wrote:
The ABNF rule for ws is not consistently ind= ented.
_______________________________________________
json mailing list
json@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json

--047d7b343eca3f79f604e87d4cc5-- From tbray@textuality.com Fri Oct 11 13:53:33 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C53511E80F9 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 13:53:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.062 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.062 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.086, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WUyTAFgUy9N7 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 13:53:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vc0-f170.google.com (mail-vc0-f170.google.com [209.85.220.170]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CBAE21F9A5F for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 13:53:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vc0-f170.google.com with SMTP id lc6so3289436vcb.1 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 13:53:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=WnKaC5Do/sYZWZq0UazFAWma5whSntQIpBqvLaic0qI=; b=YNVwosmek+JBf39OTovjv0I5P9sEGqIg+5qfkxhMyKK1FRrV5KosaDubJdGXcGlVap 87s/Lgd7AEDxcJBlgXjVem/IyYaysSJq4eFu/VlxDDpHoP2XsZkeh/WMkCzNj5BvwZSe nJLvqCgxiM9dVaWNA5cOTnAZ+p4Is0+9NX8hHUDPfcDSzAx+XenhkkVYrSnrQmxJQWTE sWctZUa1Oqqmg7XjQWfU0Uvvqs3ih20HL1Z2VWi0d8Gkp6FDCBg7PvmoLB7EeMUdHVnM 7upSdLYQQglNjTaVy3GFlRH8iSGBXjYep4lpYGeVNSnNX0BTuOYALPloNT5G+9v3oic4 omjA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmMTzzU4E8cnZq0ZkIlPg7ULHrvsEkHpy1lH8j9csYV+rA7REN3HqXY65Bv+dfsxgIBlEM0 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.52.119.198 with SMTP id kw6mr603635vdb.47.1381524807720; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 13:53:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.174.197 with HTTP; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 13:53:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [96.49.81.176] In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 13:53:27 -0700 Message-ID: From: Tim Bray To: Nico Williams Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013a1e7a69ba4304e87d4f80 Cc: "json@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Json] WGLC comment regarding top-level values X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 20:53:33 -0000 --089e013a1e7a69ba4304e87d4f80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Disagree. I think this is adequately covered in the =E2=80=9CSpecifications= of JSON section=E2=80=9D On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Nico Williams wrot= e: > Add this to the ABNF in section 2: > > A JSON-text in ECMAScript's version of JSON is any value, with > optional whitespace. Note that this is not the form that is intended > in application/json; parsers of JSON texts -in the context of the > application/json MIME media type- are free (and expected) to reject > JSON texts that are not objects or arrays. > > JSON-text-ECMA =3D ws value ws > > Nico > -- > _______________________________________________ > json mailing list > json@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json > --089e013a1e7a69ba4304e87d4f80 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Disagree. I think this is adequately covered in the =E2=80= =9CSpecifications of JSON section=E2=80=9D


On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Ni= co Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> wrote:
Add this to the ABNF in section 2:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0A JSON-text in ECMAScript's version of JSON is any value, = with
optional whitespace. =C2=A0Note that this is not the form that is intended<= br> in application/json; parsers of JSON texts -in the context of the
application/json MIME media type- are free (and expected) to reject
JSON texts that are not objects or arrays.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 JSON-text-ECMA =3D ws value ws

Nico
--
_______________________________________________
json mailing list
json@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json

--089e013a1e7a69ba4304e87d4f80-- From ietf@augustcellars.com Fri Oct 11 14:08:18 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DB6321F9BD0 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 14:08:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7fEhDLf7cXql for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 14:08:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp4.pacifier.net (smtp4.pacifier.net [64.255.237.176]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 825C221F9B86 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 14:08:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Philemon (173-12-183-193-oregon.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [173.12.183.193]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jimsch@nwlink.com) by smtp4.pacifier.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4B71238F03 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 14:08:11 -0700 (PDT) From: "Jim Schaad" To: "'JSON WG'" References: In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 14:06:38 -0700 Message-ID: <078c01cec6c5$d19fc990$74df5cb0$@augustcellars.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQJeM09fUXFhQoCp/b4kH1REUE6vypjRHpHQ Content-Language: en-us Subject: Re: [Json] REMINDER - WGLC Ends 2013-10-11 X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 21:08:18 -0000 Nothing earth shattering, I think the document can progress. A few small comments that might duplicate others peoples comments. I am not wedded to any of the comments, ignore if you don't care for them. Jim 1. It seems odd in Section 1 that a value is defined for object, but it is not for array. It might be better to move the definition of value in the paragraph of what JSON can represent so it does not appear to be special for object. 2. In section 1.2, My reading of the following text ||"Hello world!", "42", and "true"|| is that there are three strings here, but I think it was supposed to represent a string, an number and a Boolean. I am not sure how to make this clearer, but killing the quotes on the last two items might be reasonable. 3. It seems a bit odd to title section 2 "Grammar" when it does not have the entire grammar. It also seems odd that the introduction paragraph talks about things which are not in this section, but are in the following sections. 4. The following is technically a change in the grammar, however is there a reason why an integer cannot be 00, but 1E00 is legal? Do we want to change the definition of the exponent so that it matches that of integer? 5. There has been mention that one reason for using ABNF is that it can be machine consumable, does it make any sense to create an appendix which has the full grammar in it for simplicity of reference? From tbray@textuality.com Fri Oct 11 14:08:41 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FF4C21E8098 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 14:08:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.053 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.053 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.077, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4AesLKA+E9Ed for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 14:08:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vc0-f170.google.com (mail-vc0-f170.google.com [209.85.220.170]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1E5F11E80EC for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 14:08:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vc0-f170.google.com with SMTP id lc6so3251355vcb.15 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 14:08:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=FsRsjtikK2pWoeRXMgoSgtyP98/kNOUAWlIROGNvUjc=; b=OPxPbbeJM5iaQfVN9QHiitgj/zHALzBczF2XlyurtqNl2DWF9A2Rar9Lx3PKoYDTdU RAkB8UacPDfdHvJrqiL4ysASJizZdrPVJ0NbIXgGxubQEpu9FpvFJwnutqfjm8Wr2tW/ OTAzRb/KaYq7x9VJ6KifP2QE4zYkkGlpVk/nZAqqEa7V5A4I1lQX3Xz0N0q6MBTScQ9V n0QCaPxHdFNylBqC+SQ6joanyT11HwcRbY3OS2Y0IKUZ7J1erTSm96fGduCxLZm5AIDU iKOM1lVwR3Dptz7shBIijYd+ed1P12n45vcGTC6LAjeJx7n0jI1LqTdbHUdspCgIaHIi xR8Q== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnZeKrYvWfQQy5SyCsuEA1SHp4QN6d8sJCfff4rs6J4O+VqmdvRB7pkOEfGPAO34ySC9sCC MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.52.166.200 with SMTP id zi8mr2311861vdb.38.1381525714317; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 14:08:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.174.197 with HTTP; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 14:08:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [96.49.81.176] In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 14:08:34 -0700 Message-ID: From: Tim Bray To: Nico Williams Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01634aa6734a7504e87d8514 Cc: "json@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Json] WGLC comment about numeric values X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 21:08:41 -0000 --089e01634aa6734a7504e87d8514 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable How=E2=80=99s this? =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D This specification allows implementations to set limits on the range and precision of numbers accepted. Since software which implements IEEE 754-2008 binary64 (double precision) numbers [IEEE754] <#IEEE754> is generally available and widely used, good interoperability can be achieved by implementations which expect no more precision or range than these provide, in the sense that implementations will approximate JSON numbers within the expected precision. A JSON number which is outside those bounds, such as 1E400 or 3.141592653589793238462643383279, may indicate potential interoperability problems since it suggests that the software which created it it expected greater magnitude or precision than is widely available. Note that when such software is used, numbers which are integers and are in the range [-(2**53)+1, (2**53)-1] are interoperable in the sense that implementations will agree exactly on their numeric values. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Tim Bray wrote: > Actually, I think the language should be adjusted to say, rather than > generally =E2=80=9Csupports IEEE754=E2=80=9D, more specifically =E2=80=9C= supports IEEE765 64-bit > binary (double precision) numbers. Then the rest falls into place. > > > On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Nico Williams wr= ote: > >> Note that when such software is used, numbers which are integers and >> are in the range [-(2**53)+1, (2**53)-1] are interoperable in the >> sense that implementations will agree exactly on their numeric >> values. >> >> s/implementations will/implementations most likely will/ >> >> (Because there are implementations that only support 32-bit integers.) >> _______________________________________________ >> json mailing list >> json@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json >> > > --089e01634aa6734a7504e87d8514 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
How=E2=80=99s this?
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D

This specification allows implementations to set limits on the range and pr= ecision of numbers accepted. Since software which implements IEEE 754-2008 = binary64 (double precision) numbers=C2=A0[IEEE754]=C2= =A0is generally available and widely used, good interoperability can= be achieved by implementations which expect no more precision or range tha= n these provide, in the sense that implementations will approximate JSON nu= mbers within the expected precision. A JSON number which is outside those b= ounds, such as 1E400 or 3.141592653589793238462643383279, may indicate pote= ntial interoperability problems since it suggests that the software which c= reated it it expected greater magnitude or precision than is widely availab= le.

Note that when such software is used, numbers which are integers and are in= the range [-(2**53)+1, (2**53)-1] are interoperable in the sense that impl= ementations will agree exactly on their numeric values.

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D


On Fri, Oct 1= 1, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> wrote= :
Actually, I think the language should be adjusted to say, = rather than generally =E2=80=9Csupports IEEE754=E2=80=9D, more specifically= =E2=80=9Csupports IEEE765 64-bit binary (double precision) numbers.=C2=A0 = Then the rest falls into place.

On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Nico Wil= liams <nico@cryptonector.com> wrote:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0Note that when such software is= used, numbers which are integers and
=C2=A0 =C2=A0are in the range [-(2**53)+1, (2**53)-1] are interoperable in = the
=C2=A0 =C2=A0sense that implementations will agree exactly on their numeric=
=C2=A0 =C2=A0values.

s/implementations will/implementations most likely will/

(Because there are implementations that only support 32-bit integers.)
_______________________________________________
json mailing list
json@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json


--089e01634aa6734a7504e87d8514-- From tbray@textuality.com Fri Oct 11 14:13:09 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9D2521F9E11 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 14:13:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.046 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.046 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.070, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Uk3vSnUDZzOI for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 14:13:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vb0-f51.google.com (mail-vb0-f51.google.com [209.85.212.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED22621F9C1D for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 14:13:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vb0-f51.google.com with SMTP id x16so3236390vbf.10 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 14:13:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=SBFkqnViFyDqaXQXFJ7LBAP7BrnOe1ba7It1TaWClKc=; b=l+mk4Mb1/VGpFLuGnub9gBVdO6XE6z8q1QDmP9hR6ZlHo9hdWvOg406wsXUGFuTH1u uLYvtBCeV8rZZMhaAHr60+zkUiBB6wFyGPKcp0aW0R42ezV57AIxxbgjvwYLDKgDEosW InKrJWdENRsWoPpxIx6gN5HkAEPDQqKpwYA4HONNqEKXdG8V8IQwsCzqLaSC8cKkk8WW SbA14FUZZNcFOLiMIQmTrKl45yhrB10Dhly/UpvyR4uKrIwUOICAMOj/hrIMliY/53dT QQvhCvIuaGNqIzjK4HsI3WT+0U66LivLN/8RakRNnpfSJUwaxUiH3OxAq6vSwUaJL4l9 7HRw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmdTncLhCmn0qUWXbGxcFzKN/IgOMGlNNCmVkp40ZwrSeCRn/gby/DuSnSfhcik7c7EJLlC MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.220.183.199 with SMTP id ch7mr18840791vcb.27.1381525984386; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 14:13:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.174.197 with HTTP; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 14:13:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [96.49.81.176] In-Reply-To: <078c01cec6c5$d19fc990$74df5cb0$@augustcellars.com> References: <078c01cec6c5$d19fc990$74df5cb0$@augustcellars.com> Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 14:13:04 -0700 Message-ID: From: Tim Bray To: Jim Schaad Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c1bce08c33bb04e87d95cd Cc: JSON WG Subject: Re: [Json] REMINDER - WGLC Ends 2013-10-11 X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 21:13:09 -0000 --001a11c1bce08c33bb04e87d95cd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Jim Schaad wrote: > > 1. It seems odd in Section 1 that a value is defined for object, but it = is > not for array. It might be better to move the definition of value in the > paragraph of what JSON can represent so it does not appear to be special > for > object. > Don=E2=80=99t get it, which para is that? I=E2=80=99m looking at instances= of =E2=80=9Cvalue=E2=80=9D in Section 1 and not seeing it. > > 2. In section 1.2, My reading of the following text ||"Hello world!", > "42", > and "true"|| is that there are three strings here, but I think it was > supposed to represent a string, an number and a Boolean. I am not sure h= ow > to make this clearer, but killing the quotes on the last two items might = be > reasonable. > Yep, done. > > 3. It seems a bit odd to title section 2 "Grammar" when it does not have > the entire grammar. It also seems odd that the introduction paragraph > talks > about things which are not in this section, but are in the following > sections. > Yeah, the title should be =E2=80=9CTokens=E2=80=9D or some such, but it=E2= =80=99s survived all these years without causing breakage, I think we can live with it. > > 4. The following is technically a change in the grammar, however is ther= e > a > reason why an integer cannot be 00, but 1E00 is legal? Do we want to > change > the definition of the exponent so that it matches that of integer? > Eeeek, please no. > 5. There has been mention that one reason for using ABNF is that it can = be > machine consumable, does it make any sense to create an appendix which ha= s > the full grammar in it for simplicity of reference? > Evidence suggests that people have no trouble constructing JSON parsers, so probably not a huge ROI here. > > _______________________________________________ > json mailing list > json@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json > --001a11c1bce08c33bb04e87d95cd Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Jim Schaad <ietf@au= gustcellars.com> wrote:

1. =C2=A0It seems odd in Section 1 that a value is defined for object, but = it is
not for array. =C2=A0It might be better to move the definition of value in = the
paragraph of what JSON can represent so it does not appear to be special fo= r
object.=C2=A0

Don=E2=80=99t get it, whi= ch para is that?=C2=A0 I=E2=80=99m looking at instances of =E2=80=9Cvalue= =E2=80=9D in Section 1 and not seeing it.
=C2=A0

2. =C2=A0In section 1.2, My reading of the following text ||"Hello wor= ld!", "42",
and "true"|| is that there are three strings here, but I think it= was
supposed to represent a string, an number and a Boolean. =C2=A0I am not sur= e how
to make this clearer, but killing the quotes on the last two items might be=
reasonable.

Yep, done.
= =C2=A0

3. =C2=A0It seems a bit odd to title section 2 "Grammar" when it = does not have
the entire grammar. =C2=A0It also seems odd that the introduction paragraph= talks
about things which are not in this section, but are in the following
sections.

Yeah,=C2=A0 the title should = be =E2=80=9CTokens=E2=80=9D or some such, but it=E2=80=99s survived all the= se years without causing breakage, I think we can live with it.
=C2=A0

4. =C2=A0The following is technically a change in the grammar, however is t= here a
reason why an integer cannot be 00, but 1E00 is legal? =C2=A0Do we want to = change
the definition of the exponent so that it matches that of integer?

Eeeek, please no.

=C2=A0
5. =C2=A0There has been mention that one reason for using ABNF is that it c= an be
machine consumable, does it make any sense to create an appendix which has<= br> the full grammar in it for simplicity of reference?
Evidence suggests that people have no trouble constructing JSO= N parsers, so probably not a huge ROI here.
=C2=A0

_______________________________________________
json mailing list
json@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json

--001a11c1bce08c33bb04e87d95cd-- From derhoermi@gmx.net Fri Oct 11 14:28:51 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4705511E8191 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 14:28:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.878 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.878 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.721, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fKpySsFNkeVh for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 14:28:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.18]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AE8111E8174 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 14:28:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from netb.Speedport_W_700V ([91.35.4.98]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx101) with ESMTPA (Nemesis) id 0MEKZg-1VWv481fho-00FUPY for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 23:28:44 +0200 From: Bjoern Hoehrmann To: "Jim Schaad" Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 23:28:47 +0200 Message-ID: References: <078c01cec6c5$d19fc990$74df5cb0$@augustcellars.com> In-Reply-To: <078c01cec6c5$d19fc990$74df5cb0$@augustcellars.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 3.3/32.846 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:2gwIVYkFmFaycbX81zQGGIDJFSPTsJlo0S+huctnhhl99tHx89D eJ/EvtmxQ+EYwSTmmYoqI2WaM+euFa+WzrESB0T0IJvR1qoDKLAY41MF2dTUIwdPYtzzUZm OplE5lQ6momLXsyNo2h+I7tOFa7mYgDdLZeFkOwlXsut1njzsiKUR7BTNBX8q/4qjWZhmND eOtr1CK9vDgF0psT8L+Qw== Cc: 'JSON WG' Subject: Re: [Json] REMINDER - WGLC Ends 2013-10-11 X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 21:28:51 -0000 * Jim Schaad wrote: >4. The following is technically a change in the grammar, however is there a >reason why an integer cannot be 00, but 1E00 is legal? Do we want to change >the definition of the exponent so that it matches that of integer? In ecmascript a leading zero indicates an octal numeric literal. That does not affect `00`, but `010 === 8` which is confusing and there is no need for octal numbers in JSON. `1E00` is unambiguously decimal. -- Bjrn Hhrmann mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899 Dagebll PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 http://www.websitedev.de/ From cabo@tzi.org Fri Oct 11 14:30:42 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0B2611E80F8 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 14:30:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.152 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.152 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.097, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id l4-mEIQr4mFl for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 14:30:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BC1B11E8174 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 14:30:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r9BLTLFB024848; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 23:29:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.217.105] (p54890CAC.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.137.12.172]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2CD65D03; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 23:29:21 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: <078c01cec6c5$d19fc990$74df5cb0$@augustcellars.com> Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 23:29:19 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <5F0DF3E0-BA94-4ACA-81B2-A0F01D5F41D8@tzi.org> References: <078c01cec6c5$d19fc990$74df5cb0$@augustcellars.com> To: "Jim Schaad" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) Cc: 'JSON WG' Subject: Re: [Json] REMINDER - WGLC Ends 2013-10-11 X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 21:30:42 -0000 On Oct 11, 2013, at 23:06, "Jim Schaad" wrote: > 4. The following is technically a change in the grammar, however is = there a > reason why an integer cannot be 00, but 1E00 is legal?=20 Many floating point formatters by default spit out something like = 1.23e+08: >> "%g" % 1.23e8 =3D> "1.23e+08" >>> "%g" % 1.23e8 '1.23e+08' #include int main() {printf("%g\n", 1.23e8); return 0;} 1.23e+08 We would make it harder*) to produce JSON for those implementations. More importantly, there is lots of canned JSON out there that looks this = way. > Do we want to change > the definition of the exponent so that it matches that of integer? Certainly not. Gr=FC=DFe, Carsten *) inspect.sub(/(e[+-])0+/) {$1} (I happen to have written this line exactly two months ago as part of = making some output bitwise identical with the output of some JavaScript = code.) From nico@cryptonector.com Fri Oct 11 14:35:57 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCB2221E8166 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 14:35:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.983 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.983 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.006, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id akWb08a25TI3 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 14:35:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from homiemail-a32.g.dreamhost.com (caiajhbdcbef.dreamhost.com [208.97.132.145]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB3AD21E813D for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 14:35:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from homiemail-a32.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a32.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74772584064 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 14:35:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h= mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from :to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s= cryptonector.com; bh=y3e1bfGjw58HSjW66TP7f2Qy3vE=; b=T7vuN1FpgnB wktqFK55uzr5vMm2f5QHcCT6lNzHhnAXs8z6U1O7kt5PHowZuTZyH03a5obMpEQw MN2BBDhes9xZQs73wAdXVpvHCU6SDwvkxoouQOZy4v3XVZdRWVR131WWm9mnkk1g kB0qwhpug6r3Xui+x8Kqdvz7Zqgen4NE= Received: from mail-wi0-f176.google.com (mail-wi0-f176.google.com [209.85.212.176]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by homiemail-a32.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0FEA9584057 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 14:35:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wi0-f176.google.com with SMTP id l12so1475335wiv.15 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 14:35:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=JweKgT3Dr4FONzaJmWTMcSekhurNLtB59eav5HNkmrY=; b=KkXhIm96j/qh6DVxxau8nhrfuEeSozEJXGhREQ95h3WGHVKZtRAOdQQTuGTRmJMWRH yu0L4p9BFWL2Qt1hmhPl//+eZl26YDiEEXLiIa09xMw1pZJ8yHHP2VLL5hMMLOc+3+3z 24OBHLedMBZnmz6MK4vzFjGBs+SM54lXKxhBtBEb/1fu7K3iEY/CxA/htx0PeX/hrgM3 Sqigh2kW4sS2qRbER7vEDcPPQ6kli+g8oMRLdiRXJpG/Cdo7bf8HiIyIU+viFXOOBp8D YRdyQcErKXRr18DIMcKJrY0xiVTGNM0gmRW8VEq9kFCu0SSWoDLDWc/dBnNsePNzdWJK 7Axg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.99.3 with SMTP id em3mr5054911wib.4.1381527344400; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 14:35:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.165.5 with HTTP; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 14:35:44 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 16:35:44 -0500 Message-ID: From: Nico Williams To: Tim Bray Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "json@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Json] WGLC comment about numeric values X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 21:35:57 -0000 On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Tim Bray wrote: > How=E2=80=99s this? WFM. From cabo@tzi.org Fri Oct 11 14:39:34 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2949021E813D for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 14:39:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.155 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.155 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.094, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zupgjFzLgfVM for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 14:39:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14CE321E8121 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 14:39:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r9BLdINf017605; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 23:39:18 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.217.105] (p54890CAC.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.137.12.172]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 27AD6D05; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 23:39:18 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 23:39:16 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <0C7C7980-6023-4795-B22D-AA711D08A645@tzi.org> References: To: Tim Bray X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) Cc: Nico Williams , "json@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Json] WGLC comment about numeric values X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 21:39:34 -0000 On Oct 11, 2013, at 23:08, Tim Bray wrote: > A JSON number which is outside those bounds, such as 1E400 or = 3.141592653589793238462643383279, may indicate potential = interoperability problems since it suggests that the software which = created it it expected greater magnitude or precision than is widely = available. Strike "which is outside those bounds". > A JSON number such as 1E400 or 3.141592653589793238462643383279 may = indicate potential interoperability problems since it suggests that the = software which created it it expected greater magnitude or precision = than is widely available. (I don't want to restart the 1.1 discussion :-) Gr=FC=DFe, Carsten From tbray@textuality.com Fri Oct 11 14:43:25 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1E5521F9C4A for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 14:43:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.04 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.04 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.064, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aV0I9Cfs+Zod for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 14:43:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vb0-f54.google.com (mail-vb0-f54.google.com [209.85.212.54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2C9721F8514 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 14:43:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vb0-f54.google.com with SMTP id q14so3247968vbe.13 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 14:43:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=SuGOYHseQ9Dhe6EnBAmUQIdNmizM+anAHoA3FiGlEMs=; b=KJpZmWAR+ID7kApu8VUV5gRYOJKNW6j0m8eE762ap/XvXSRRjfBc0+1mzZMyT/LgS5 5UGyTpgUXXcSw6OYQlE8s34lcCM/dd2donrTB84Y60J7scch4l1gLYI0IY3LPPwamds7 BVtAzVKAtCfMDlrtrXwO1IaoeTdlOiVtlfwPZiOHSAr/e1Etmmlv1W//0DL6dWPIAimY 5sAfGnwhj1BR1woLQ4T4KjjN92de7jdhS77DatbRM0aNHO7oKhEkxhd/Ua0fwsZ199O2 rjl1JLKBu0UXG+S5sjmx1WBD88oYZCeASAH+E4z3CM3wPFxs3Hj2oGkWNoGpc1lQ7RPF LIzQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQln7ofAEIr/esmQpJqdYiaRUi8ug803lM6qCyvw7O6ACbNKaZQRAWnHc8MNQnVtHz56jf2T MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.220.47.10 with SMTP id l10mr2835711vcf.32.1381527798141; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 14:43:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.174.197 with HTTP; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 14:43:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [96.49.81.176] In-Reply-To: <0C7C7980-6023-4795-B22D-AA711D08A645@tzi.org> References: <0C7C7980-6023-4795-B22D-AA711D08A645@tzi.org> Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 14:43:18 -0700 Message-ID: From: Tim Bray To: Carsten Bormann Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2a58ca7e90604e87e0133 Cc: Nico Williams , "json@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Json] WGLC comment about numeric values X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 21:43:26 -0000 --001a11c2a58ca7e90604e87e0133 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Less is more; WFM. On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote: > On Oct 11, 2013, at 23:08, Tim Bray wrote: > > > A JSON number which is outside those bounds, such as 1E400 or > 3.141592653589793238462643383279, may indicate potential interoperability > problems since it suggests that the software which created it it expected > greater magnitude or precision than is widely available. > > Strike "which is outside those bounds". > > > A JSON number such as 1E400 or 3.141592653589793238462643383279 may > indicate potential interoperability problems since it suggests that the > software which created it it expected greater magnitude or precision than > is widely available. > > (I don't want to restart the 1.1 discussion :-) > > Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten > > --001a11c2a58ca7e90604e87e0133 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Less is more; WFM.

On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Carsten Bo= rmann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
On Oct 11, 2013, at 23:08,= Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com<= /a>> wrote:

> A JSON number which is outside those bounds, such as 1E400 or 3.141592= 653589793238462643383279, may indicate potential interoperability problems = since it suggests that the software which created it it expected greater ma= gnitude or precision than is widely available.

Strike "which is outside those bounds".

> A JSON number such as 1E400 or 3.141592653589793238462643383279 may in= dicate potential interoperability problems since it suggests that the softw= are which created it it expected greater magnitude or precision than is wid= ely available.

(I don't want to restart the 1.1 discussion :-)

Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten


--001a11c2a58ca7e90604e87e0133-- From mamille2@cisco.com Fri Oct 11 14:59:45 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 955B311E80E9 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 14:59:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gORoJvnfhQ9q for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 14:59:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5704611E8191 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 14:59:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=6700; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1381528775; x=1382738375; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=aaFAK8unPMPvXqNJOtlfshitJfd30en8eYYaESTzHYQ=; b=ZH/HvtdPgMETFw6gDwhiudBLELIEoZdWDP75/N3EaeArWvn65WJmeRuI YJ6BKwiG4eYxG6IjBG7XZd0mjv5ALY2tVp2rsBOJ70zlwVYMJn1vGTcUC l3DvG1ZZ+wIC7D4c0JkSLEiXbM4Abumek7F+TTsR/tXL5+L7+UEttQnu4 k=; X-Files: smime.p7s : 4136 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgEFAElzWFKtJV2Z/2dsb2JhbABagweBCsFegSUWdIImAQEEgQkCAQgiJAIwJQIEEwgGh3i8Do8WOIMfgQQDkCuBMJgsgySCKg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,478,1378857600"; d="p7s'?scan'208";a="271189640" Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 11 Oct 2013 21:59:34 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x15.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x15.cisco.com [173.36.12.89]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r9BLxXuP021621 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 21:59:33 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x11.cisco.com ([169.254.6.119]) by xhc-aln-x15.cisco.com ([173.36.12.89]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 16:59:33 -0500 From: "Matt Miller (mamille2)" To: JSON WG Thread-Topic: [Json] REMINDER - WGLC Ends 2013-10-11 Thread-Index: AQHOxWfEKZonjAyzEk632XJZaTBubpnwY1YA Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 21:59:33 +0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [64.101.72.48] Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_66E43CDA-42FB-4C59-ADB4-37DD7C738777"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Json] REMINDER - WGLC Ends 2013-10-11 X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 21:59:45 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_66E43CDA-42FB-4C59-ADB4-37DD7C738777 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii /me doffs hat I think this document is ready for publication. I have one very minor = nit: * 1.2. Specifications of JSON -- This section starts off with "A = description of JSON in ECMAScript terms first appeared in version 5.1 of = the ECMAScript specification [ECMA-262]...". However, it actually was = first introduced to ECMA-262 with 5th Edition. If changing this is worthwhile, I would suggest that fragment change to = "A description of JSON in ECMAScript terms exists in version 5.1 of the = ECMAScript specification [ECMA-262]..." - m&m Matt Miller < mamille2@cisco.com > Cisco Systems, Inc. --Apple-Mail=_66E43CDA-42FB-4C59-ADB4-37DD7C738777 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIMezCCBjQw ggQcoAMCAQICAR4wDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwfTELMAkGA1UEBhMCSUwxFjAUBgNVBAoTDVN0YXJ0 Q29tIEx0ZC4xKzApBgNVBAsTIlNlY3VyZSBEaWdpdGFsIENlcnRpZmljYXRlIFNpZ25pbmcxKTAn BgNVBAMTIFN0YXJ0Q29tIENlcnRpZmljYXRpb24gQXV0aG9yaXR5MB4XDTA3MTAyNDIxMDE1NVoX DTE3MTAyNDIxMDE1NVowgYwxCzAJBgNVBAYTAklMMRYwFAYDVQQKEw1TdGFydENvbSBMdGQuMSsw KQYDVQQLEyJTZWN1cmUgRGlnaXRhbCBDZXJ0aWZpY2F0ZSBTaWduaW5nMTgwNgYDVQQDEy9TdGFy dENvbSBDbGFzcyAxIFByaW1hcnkgSW50ZXJtZWRpYXRlIENsaWVudCBDQTCCASIwDQYJKoZIhvcN AQEBBQADggEPADCCAQoCggEBAMcJg8zOLdgasSmkLhOrlr6KMoOMpohBllVHrdRvEg/q6r8jR+EK 75xCGhR8ToREoqe7zM9/UnC6TS2y9UKTpT1v7RSMzR0t6ndl0TWBuUr/UXBhPk+Kmy7bI4yW4urC +y7P3/1/X7U8ocb8VpH/Clt+4iq7nirMcNh6qJR+xjOhV+VHzQMALuGYn5KZmc1NbJQYclsGkDxD z2UbFqE2+6vIZoL+jb9x4Pa5gNf1TwSDkOkikZB1xtB4ZqtXThaABSONdfmv/Z1pua3FYxnCFmdr /+N2JLKutIxMYqQOJebr/f/h5t95m4JgrM3Y/w7YX9d7YAL9jvN4SydHsU6n65cCAwEAAaOCAa0w ggGpMA8GA1UdEwEB/wQFMAMBAf8wDgYDVR0PAQH/BAQDAgEGMB0GA1UdDgQWBBRTcu2SnODaywFc fH6WNU7y1LhRgjAfBgNVHSMEGDAWgBROC+8apEBbpRdphzDKNGhD0EGu8jBmBggrBgEFBQcBAQRa MFgwJwYIKwYBBQUHMAGGG2h0dHA6Ly9vY3NwLnN0YXJ0c3NsLmNvbS9jYTAtBggrBgEFBQcwAoYh aHR0cDovL3d3dy5zdGFydHNzbC5jb20vc2ZzY2EuY3J0MFsGA1UdHwRUMFIwJ6AloCOGIWh0dHA6 Ly93d3cuc3RhcnRzc2wuY29tL3Nmc2NhLmNybDAnoCWgI4YhaHR0cDovL2NybC5zdGFydHNzbC5j b20vc2ZzY2EuY3JsMIGABgNVHSAEeTB3MHUGCysGAQQBgbU3AQIBMGYwLgYIKwYBBQUHAgEWImh0 dHA6Ly93d3cuc3RhcnRzc2wuY29tL3BvbGljeS5wZGYwNAYIKwYBBQUHAgEWKGh0dHA6Ly93d3cu c3RhcnRzc2wuY29tL2ludGVybWVkaWF0ZS5wZGYwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQADggIBAAqDCH14qywG XLhjjF6uHLkjd02hcdh9hrw+VUsv+q1eeQWB21jWj3kJ96AUlPCoEGZ/ynJNScWy6QMVQjbbMXlt UfO4n4bGGdKo3awPWp61tjAFgraLJgDk+DsSvUD6EowjMTNx25GQgyYJ5RPIzKKR9tQW8gGK+2+R HxkUCTbYFnL6kl8Ch507rUdPPipJ9CgJFws3kDS3gOS5WFMxcjO5DwKfKSETEPrHh7p5shuuNktv sv6hxHTLhiMKX893gxdT3XLS9OKmCv87vkINQcNEcIIoFWbP9HORz9v3vQwR4e3ksLc2JZOAFK+s sS5XMEoznzpihEP0PLc4dCBYjbvSD7kxgDwZ+Aj8Q9PkbvE9sIPP7ON0fz095HdThKjiVJe6vofq +n6b1NBc8XdrQvBmunwxD5nvtTW4vtN6VY7mUCmxsCieuoBJ9OlqmsVWQvifIYf40dJPZkk9YgGT zWLpXDSfLSplbY2LL9C9U0ptvjcDjefLTvqSFc7tw1sEhF0n/qpA2r0GpvkLRDmcSwVyPvmjFBGq Up/pNy8ZuPGQmHwFi2/14+xeSUDG2bwnsYJQG2EdJCB6luQ57GEnTA/yKZSTKI8dDQa8Sd3zfXb1 9mOgSF0bBdXbuKhEpuP9wirslFe6fQ1t5j5R0xi72MZ8ikMu1RQZKCyDbMwazlHiMIIGPzCCBSeg AwIBAgIDBoRIMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAMIGMMQswCQYDVQQGEwJJTDEWMBQGA1UEChMNU3RhcnRD b20gTHRkLjErMCkGA1UECxMiU2VjdXJlIERpZ2l0YWwgQ2VydGlmaWNhdGUgU2lnbmluZzE4MDYG A1UEAxMvU3RhcnRDb20gQ2xhc3MgMSBQcmltYXJ5IEludGVybWVkaWF0ZSBDbGllbnQgQ0EwHhcN MTMwNDMwMjE1NDQyWhcNMTQwNTAyMDUzOTA0WjBbMRkwFwYDVQQNExBiN2F6NndOY0t0R3JtMEpF MRswGQYDVQQDDBJtYW1pbGxlMkBjaXNjby5jb20xITAfBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWEm1hbWlsbGUyQGNp c2NvLmNvbTCCASIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADggEPADCCAQoCggEBAJbKBMsG+9UFTx9uq/bhhXgu vJvO8z7cwKaqqwZhVf5z/kHFyCNijtmTOE+YXjA8mWR4aoBwB5SvGypI/cJUofJ+AlBTC4g+RMx/ K0Ab4/jQqTQz9CDzMOB+Wm+rt8ZJ7A8ZzOJmNDAsf/VvB8l2A1SQz1UsAixgH16NTr8SlblAXEKk 4hwpCudUiNjjQokqJ0H686UBKVorcZSgXaza8XMqGtJF/8mNhR9GQYi7Xht1ky+9LFOrto2daZto KJRwMeVusVdHUeKEQSu7jztw8HchH3KEb7Q+r5X+hhDZoddfKE8d5eyPuhiZdrzv7OlNZ0fSLdx7 3AE3nx9/R5YlXucCAwEAAaOCAtgwggLUMAkGA1UdEwQCMAAwCwYDVR0PBAQDAgSwMB0GA1UdJQQW MBQGCCsGAQUFBwMCBggrBgEFBQcDBDAdBgNVHQ4EFgQUxGd+/qrdVudHrIKkw5xOMY7eaLUwHwYD VR0jBBgwFoAUU3Ltkpzg2ssBXHx+ljVO8tS4UYIwHQYDVR0RBBYwFIESbWFtaWxsZTJAY2lzY28u Y29tMIIBTAYDVR0gBIIBQzCCAT8wggE7BgsrBgEEAYG1NwECAzCCASowLgYIKwYBBQUHAgEWImh0 dHA6Ly93d3cuc3RhcnRzc2wuY29tL3BvbGljeS5wZGYwgfcGCCsGAQUFBwICMIHqMCcWIFN0YXJ0 Q29tIENlcnRpZmljYXRpb24gQXV0aG9yaXR5MAMCAQEagb5UaGlzIGNlcnRpZmljYXRlIHdhcyBp c3N1ZWQgYWNjb3JkaW5nIHRvIHRoZSBDbGFzcyAxIFZhbGlkYXRpb24gcmVxdWlyZW1lbnRzIG9m IHRoZSBTdGFydENvbSBDQSBwb2xpY3ksIHJlbGlhbmNlIG9ubHkgZm9yIHRoZSBpbnRlbmRlZCBw dXJwb3NlIGluIGNvbXBsaWFuY2Ugb2YgdGhlIHJlbHlpbmcgcGFydHkgb2JsaWdhdGlvbnMuMDYG A1UdHwQvMC0wK6ApoCeGJWh0dHA6Ly9jcmwuc3RhcnRzc2wuY29tL2NydHUxLWNybC5jcmwwgY4G CCsGAQUFBwEBBIGBMH8wOQYIKwYBBQUHMAGGLWh0dHA6Ly9vY3NwLnN0YXJ0c3NsLmNvbS9zdWIv Y2xhc3MxL2NsaWVudC9jYTBCBggrBgEFBQcwAoY2aHR0cDovL2FpYS5zdGFydHNzbC5jb20vY2Vy dHMvc3ViLmNsYXNzMS5jbGllbnQuY2EuY3J0MCMGA1UdEgQcMBqGGGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuc3RhcnRz c2wuY29tLzANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFAAOCAQEAlDhXbGEI7lbqUcu5r2JHZaMsbRZda/99ZqODzWGX 0llou9jGccsAWDPPwRRe2+ROpXfH4cuJZElTcLDeZSp/qpXKhjYieFSX8+Ml9sKEj5UOSqQLyoLk PtrIJV12Jk3nuG2Jc0UeEnGwK/aqtzy7+bfEVI0ziyVM2gChHh0RH74KyiwYWknbOTRIkZcz/ulE DVFQp63uj6wfmDNvAUHBAdhKVqA1S/rfP1KcDZpf1NfvwXJibiqTRA6K1EOxTJOP41n/XdvHqHXL RWL2xrOUI9/URANr/ok3OrsuZEMFnAAGefS1bWS/hFtUGVkHGiKEBbyDW7da2ULXbuC7umrQnzGC A28wggNrAgEBMIGUMIGMMQswCQYDVQQGEwJJTDEWMBQGA1UEChMNU3RhcnRDb20gTHRkLjErMCkG A1UECxMiU2VjdXJlIERpZ2l0YWwgQ2VydGlmaWNhdGUgU2lnbmluZzE4MDYGA1UEAxMvU3RhcnRD b20gQ2xhc3MgMSBQcmltYXJ5IEludGVybWVkaWF0ZSBDbGllbnQgQ0ECAwaESDAJBgUrDgMCGgUA oIIBrzAYBgkqhkiG9w0BCQMxCwYJKoZIhvcNAQcBMBwGCSqGSIb3DQEJBTEPFw0xMzEwMTEyMTU5 MzNaMCMGCSqGSIb3DQEJBDEWBBQgflN2m+xoaNoyFGGNOxnat0WthTCBpQYJKwYBBAGCNxAEMYGX MIGUMIGMMQswCQYDVQQGEwJJTDEWMBQGA1UEChMNU3RhcnRDb20gTHRkLjErMCkGA1UECxMiU2Vj dXJlIERpZ2l0YWwgQ2VydGlmaWNhdGUgU2lnbmluZzE4MDYGA1UEAxMvU3RhcnRDb20gQ2xhc3Mg MSBQcmltYXJ5IEludGVybWVkaWF0ZSBDbGllbnQgQ0ECAwaESDCBpwYLKoZIhvcNAQkQAgsxgZeg gZQwgYwxCzAJBgNVBAYTAklMMRYwFAYDVQQKEw1TdGFydENvbSBMdGQuMSswKQYDVQQLEyJTZWN1 cmUgRGlnaXRhbCBDZXJ0aWZpY2F0ZSBTaWduaW5nMTgwNgYDVQQDEy9TdGFydENvbSBDbGFzcyAx IFByaW1hcnkgSW50ZXJtZWRpYXRlIENsaWVudCBDQQIDBoRIMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUABIIBAEcH SJU7lJHgCDb8d9XNbswm0aG7kEN3tJQgiTLDGzBKPeBcA49PdPSFQixRIhqWsHAZ5sKHDZU4An6q y99fDl758Bl2s9RFKGOWldyJxqPjAMKv39MK4Q62yOMfKMx3KeMInGrM7gDp9t4igrXeaqePkdr8 M9DI8N5W8Rx3eRV1d0ub5Qg9NiWyJicx7H+kaWezxeyq+8RSVskrOr4X/3mE+IOhp6XbxsCHizw4 ZjqBOvM/xjBYw7Mt3ZFSKPiYJea96Fgb+Aqw6Jxz36gddqjFYNFNjjfGZt2SIo2DhoKQDfRclImP lCu2dbDozw3eASKYeSzWToXjZok/gCTBlSAAAAAAAAA= --Apple-Mail=_66E43CDA-42FB-4C59-ADB4-37DD7C738777-- From jorge@jorgechamorro.com Fri Oct 11 15:07:53 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FF5721E808F for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 15:07:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2i9sfez4mwH0 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 15:07:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-we0-f180.google.com (mail-we0-f180.google.com [74.125.82.180]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E78121E808C for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 15:07:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-we0-f180.google.com with SMTP id q59so4783396wes.39 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 15:07:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:mime-version:content-type:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to; bh=Z0dDwx0f6S5xtJt9ZA1gGUfEVArebIctecpc8L/Fs6g=; b=eNKn4tddRSBwYy+k1Zf7JVOoE6HEtid6asaWKopZj4nFCdolvhPujDig91XbCa1t/e VgkULOUK9Kfxk6O2ufurDnfq64BeC5yXMnu945TqJZemGMgT/DLd3M+tCbUUNz9PmVEW fc/tFVtptcrhJbdA6HeiYA/bJYBEXrtFGNhtTc22vRDH1bw/pTO+23xjPPXKzyey9QiL rIsCvadrJkdBa5wTOX8/PhjY8KZczV5KdyFb5sEyrjHf5JB8uULaeTdN3XXncgv0h252 2rYzJGho32uGaPHHkxvKZIaEsjbDxq743xNsUXvXvQDdR1KnL+J32ZDV+Rdjw8atawOG +O7Q== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn0YMedP4IkAXelGMm1+XD7Y/udqn4wJdgn/mImULHzp52K29jkimAIxPv7L9JMFZbidqGG X-Received: by 10.180.211.111 with SMTP id nb15mr4878357wic.55.1381529263535; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 15:07:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.10.50] (252.Red-83-61-208.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net. [83.61.208.252]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id b7sm9531238wiz.8.1969.12.31.16.00.00 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 11 Oct 2013 15:07:43 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Jorge Chamorro In-Reply-To: <0C7C7980-6023-4795-B22D-AA711D08A645@tzi.org> Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 00:07:40 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <0C7C7980-6023-4795-B22D-AA711D08A645@tzi.org> To: Carsten Bormann X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085) Cc: Nico Williams , Tim Bray , "json@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Json] WGLC comment about numeric values X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 22:07:53 -0000 On 11/10/2013, at 23:39, Carsten Bormann wrote: >=20 > (I don't want to restart the 1.1 discussion :-) You don't want :-), but that's interesting and a *very* common source of = problems and surprises. Perhaps what you want to say can be said in a = short line. Why don't you try? E.g: "Fractions in base 10 often can't be represented exactly in a binary = format, e.g. 0.1" "IEEE-754 is a binary format" Or a link to somewhere like = ? ? --=20 ( Jorge )();= From tbray@textuality.com Fri Oct 11 15:13:47 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C260B21E8099 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 15:13:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.035 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.035 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.059, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1txDQDiV496b for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 15:13:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vb0-f53.google.com (mail-vb0-f53.google.com [209.85.212.53]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDF1E21E808F for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 15:13:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vb0-f53.google.com with SMTP id i3so3164441vbh.40 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 15:13:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=XsMEggcj5dE39LEv15Z7igSAjZy+6MdthOzgzmUKp1g=; b=nAGbGjfyOZvuxlZme6Q4Ov2YDFH2T1aAwEyklItc4IeMIxAEJkL51VYNqYvCshUmIt TRgBQIBrA3dNoLHDSvWBQBBdPIUkf42Nd1KcrG+pqy6gdEdYdmynEOAYbokIT7Yzfv8R PIOXEUhiar32vXyXtmrSTJ75hDfwMI40wjxpVtD3YEumfOBy+1uI2mLmZrvIepXyNnnr ui+fzPlOltCQmrty6PV7+ai7SEWpFCIC8vQlH1DrGHTmxBoACxqoTiOIiY5aN2jj+q+I 4kmJVzILmU8pZbXX+80oCT5arCaYnTA0c4vBjSYdYw+9xS4oy/hho3O+oXZ/KfymaFVY K4yA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl9q+pcp7QGPr7kNt+9QW3RRID80FDkFKiLordAKHe8ICCgVAgEIVwheY0Xd6XLvcpQvQv3 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.52.35.136 with SMTP id h8mr18949199vdj.6.1381529619907; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 15:13:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.174.197 with HTTP; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 15:13:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [96.49.81.176] In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 15:13:39 -0700 Message-ID: From: Tim Bray To: "Matt Miller (mamille2)" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf3079bfa23de3f404e87e6ee0 Cc: JSON WG Subject: Re: [Json] REMINDER - WGLC Ends 2013-10-11 X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 22:13:48 -0000 --20cf3079bfa23de3f404e87e6ee0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 WFM On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Matt Miller (mamille2) wrote: > /me doffs hat > > I think this document is ready for publication. I have one very minor nit: > > * 1.2. Specifications of JSON -- This section starts off with "A > description of JSON in ECMAScript terms first appeared in version 5.1 of > the ECMAScript specification [ECMA-262]...". However, it actually was > first introduced to ECMA-262 with 5th Edition. > > If changing this is worthwhile, I would suggest that fragment change to "A > description of JSON in ECMAScript terms exists in version 5.1 of the > ECMAScript specification [ECMA-262]..." > > > - m&m > > Matt Miller < mamille2@cisco.com > > Cisco Systems, Inc. > > > _______________________________________________ > json mailing list > json@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json > > --20cf3079bfa23de3f404e87e6ee0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
WFM


On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Matt Miller (mamille2) <mamille2@cisco.com> wrote:
/me doffs hat

I think this document is ready for publication. =C2=A0I have one very minor= nit:

* 1.2. Specifications of JSON -- This section starts off with "A descr= iption of JSON in ECMAScript terms first appeared in version 5.1 of the ECM= AScript specification [ECMA-262]...". =C2=A0However, it actually was f= irst introduced to ECMA-262 with 5th Edition.

If changing this is worthwhile, I would suggest that fragment change to &qu= ot;A description of JSON in ECMAScript terms exists in version 5.1 of the E= CMAScript specification [ECMA-262]..."


- m&m

Matt Miller < mamille2@cisco.com >
Cisco Systems, Inc.


_______________________________________________
json mailing list
json@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json


--20cf3079bfa23de3f404e87e6ee0-- From jorge@jorgechamorro.com Fri Oct 11 15:18:16 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 230E621F970E for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 15:18:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7TukPdINZ29a for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 15:18:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-we0-f170.google.com (mail-we0-f170.google.com [74.125.82.170]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51B6F21F96CA for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 15:18:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-we0-f170.google.com with SMTP id u57so4912247wes.1 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 15:18:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:mime-version:content-type:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to; bh=iPaXLVM1J3cerPlvBDNYL40RNux+/UGBP+1+v+eVE5k=; b=ZB5OwlHDYIPUobCh8qHK6npaTIAj28mgbzelMYvkgVVzZARgmQYEOV1bOMiX2B689X ROHvwyM2QYdakUUMXb0pmlkGZG/Joxo+KnFinteV21mI/NEThCPq2HeX4tMzz5NCoS1H KI+J4yGEKDqJ+ImSYuiHJh3gb0aEgEPS5dEehtDaJ5LM1IXhs/22QQRIo8F+YtDT/Sqb GL6XbuWRCbELTziD7DKJ2nTkbka5Rxq0yDGfaYkCF4UQ/98KtqfA3ukobSsFDFRcGCFR ZpqLq4b/Hsol24CLcfZI7xBdJKXqvlrTTHKowU1zR91Gnr9Xr0+KPf60mfJ3Jcgt05Yf LO6g== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmM4VP+XagztrKvYncpuSNyDTkVD48CyDoqg/bAgrOyxbgBzva7EeYPy5oNpwev4wSDRevN X-Received: by 10.194.77.2 with SMTP id o2mr54880wjw.57.1381529887086; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 15:18:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.10.50] (252.Red-83-61-208.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net. [83.61.208.252]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id b7sm9587162wiz.8.1969.12.31.16.00.00 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 11 Oct 2013 15:18:06 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Jorge Chamorro In-Reply-To: Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 00:18:04 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <0C7C7980-6023-4795-B22D-AA711D08A645@tzi.org> To: Jorge Chamorro X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085) Cc: Nico Williams , Carsten Bormann , Tim Bray , "json@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Json] WGLC comment about numeric values X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 22:18:16 -0000 > "Note that IEEE-754 is a binary format, but JSON represents numbers in = base 10" From tbray@textuality.com Fri Oct 11 15:34:19 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02DA521E8087 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 15:34:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.031 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.031 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.055, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EXFB2Kvsgp39 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 15:34:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vb0-f54.google.com (mail-vb0-f54.google.com [209.85.212.54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A897E21E808F for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 15:34:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vb0-f54.google.com with SMTP id q14so3212750vbe.41 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 15:34:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=Rz4AB3COscB08nrSQX1ARU/Kryd3hMsf8XcmVon29XM=; b=T4/O9U4SG/p62Hb3USLOer040wDgVlZI1UBNKBeYJYGjt13XMOi4Z75luA8XqWKslt bHfw/xGjRt794qP4mGl1HdYCfH1SwUK7nYIJIoRgb3XNwnFKL/z8qa+hQcFvs6KqULLm bg64LKa3KjnwxXV/MHSmnErDpjT0NGk0/pam2V4qMzvO8M2Ogbi4ft4sfARTf58gWTgw ftmLb6wfZcfme2E5U1H9NOZzYkF+Tmeju2ZE/qIfpcjwQIYQdjIgj9oSokuBT8JpFqOd P6VDHgGKEqXjTYk4/f9fOdxPOjtZ2CREOYzcYpN9DoQJfytbTXWLOOinqlWtfQ4UZqVT vGYA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkrvnGMDcuROAnQk80ejUijus0mZFesCPxHNLDBW9pNh7SH6HtSwZbPZCiL7w4VrmJVB8d5 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.52.76.36 with SMTP id h4mr7545vdw.46.1381530850825; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 15:34:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.174.197 with HTTP; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 15:34:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [96.49.81.176] In-Reply-To: References: <0C7C7980-6023-4795-B22D-AA711D08A645@tzi.org> Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 15:34:10 -0700 Message-ID: From: Tim Bray To: Jorge Chamorro Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf3071c8c29c2dc904e87eb71d Cc: Nico Williams , Carsten Bormann , "json@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Json] WGLC comment about numeric values X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 22:34:19 -0000 --20cf3071c8c29c2dc904e87eb71d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Those problems and surprises are totally nonspecific to JSON. Don=E2=80=99= t think it adds value. On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Jorge Chamorro wr= ote: > On 11/10/2013, at 23:39, Carsten Bormann wrote: > > > > (I don't want to restart the 1.1 discussion :-) > > You don't want :-), but that's interesting and a *very* common source of > problems and surprises. Perhaps what you want to say can be said in a sho= rt > line. Why don't you try? E.g: > > "Fractions in base 10 often can't be represented exactly in a binary > format, e.g. 0.1" "IEEE-754 is a binary format" > > Or a link to somewhere like < > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_point#Accuracy_problems> ? > > ? > > -- > ( Jorge )(); --20cf3071c8c29c2dc904e87eb71d Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Those problems and surprises are totally nonspecific to JS= ON.=C2=A0 Don=E2=80=99t think it adds value.


On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 3:07 PM, J= orge Chamorro <jorge@jorgechamorro.com> wrote:
On 11/10/2013, at 23:39, C= arsten Bormann wrote:
>
> (I don't want to restart the 1.1 discussion :-)

You don't want :-), but that's interesting and a *very* commo= n source of problems and surprises. Perhaps what you want to say can be sai= d in a short line. Why don't you try? E.g:

"Fractions in base 10 often can't be represented exactly in a bina= ry format, e.g. 0.1" "IEEE-754 is a binary format"

Or a link to somewhere like <http://en.wikipedia.org/wi= ki/Floating_point#Accuracy_problems> ?

?

--
( Jorge )();

--20cf3071c8c29c2dc904e87eb71d-- From ietf@augustcellars.com Fri Oct 11 15:59:33 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA4D521E8103 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 15:59:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.523 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.523 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id heqLc1X6rdNY for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 15:59:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp4.pacifier.net (smtp4.pacifier.net [64.255.237.176]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D2A521E8095 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 15:59:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Philemon (winery.augustcellars.com [206.212.239.129]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jimsch@nwlink.com) by smtp4.pacifier.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C36F138F42; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 15:59:21 -0700 (PDT) From: "Jim Schaad" To: "'Tim Bray'" References: <078c01cec6c5$d19fc990$74df5cb0$@augustcellars.com> In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 15:58:05 -0700 Message-ID: <07c201cec6d5$5932acb0$0b980610$@augustcellars.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_07C3_01CEC69A.ACD58260" X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQJeM09fUXFhQoCp/b4kH1REUE6vygFx3+QaAeXrwVeYtoV1cA== Content-Language: en-us Cc: 'JSON WG' Subject: Re: [Json] REMINDER - WGLC Ends 2013-10-11 X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 22:59:33 -0000 This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_07C3_01CEC69A.ACD58260 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20 =20 From: Tim Bray [mailto:tbray@textuality.com]=20 Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 2:13 PM To: Jim Schaad Cc: JSON WG Subject: Re: [Json] REMINDER - WGLC Ends 2013-10-11 =20 On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Jim Schaad = wrote: 1. It seems odd in Section 1 that a value is defined for object, but it = is not for array. It might be better to move the definition of value in = the paragraph of what JSON can represent so it does not appear to be special = for object.=20 =20 Don=E2=80=99t get it, which para is that? I=E2=80=99m looking at = instances of =E2=80=9Cvalue=E2=80=9D in Section 1 and not seeing it. =20 An object is an unordered collection of zero or more name/value pairs, where a name is a string and a value is a string, number, boolean, null, object, or array. =20 An array is an ordered sequence of zero or more values =20 Value is explicitly set in the first paragraph, but is implicit in the = second (or it flows from the first).. =20 =20 ------=_NextPart_000_07C3_01CEC69A.ACD58260 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

 

 

From:= = Tim Bray [mailto:tbray@textuality.com]
Sent: Friday, October = 11, 2013 2:13 PM
To: Jim Schaad
Cc: JSON = WG
Subject: Re: [Json] REMINDER - WGLC Ends = 2013-10-11

 

On Fri, = Oct 11, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com> = wrote:


1. =  It seems odd in Section 1 that a value is defined for object, but = it is
not for array.  It might be better to move the definition = of value in the
paragraph of what JSON can represent so it does not = appear to be special = for
object. 

 

Don=E2=80=99t get it, which para is that?  = I=E2=80=99m looking at instances of =E2=80=9Cvalue=E2=80=9D in Section 1 = and not seeing it.

 

An = object is an unordered collection of zero or more = name/value

=C2=A0=C2=A0 pairs, where a name is a string and a = value is a string, number,

=C2=A0=C2=A0 boolean, null, object, or = array.

 

=C2=A0=C2=A0 An array is an ordered sequence of zero = or more values

 

Value is explicitly set in the first paragraph, but = is implicit in the second (or it flows from the = first)..

 

 

------=_NextPart_000_07C3_01CEC69A.ACD58260-- From allen@wirfs-brock.com Fri Oct 11 16:01:01 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A21FD21E80F0 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 16:01:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.500, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qh7qhup02LYr for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 16:00:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org (mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org [204.13.248.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7122421E8084 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 16:00:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 069-064-236-244.pdx.net ([69.64.236.244] helo=[192.168.0.14]) by mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1VUlhW-000DW6-VT; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 23:00:55 +0000 X-Mail-Handler: Dyn Standard SMTP by Dyn X-Originating-IP: 69.64.236.244 X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@dyndns.com (see http://www.dyndns.com/services/sendlabs/outbound_abuse.html for abuse reporting information) X-MHO-User: U2FsdGVkX19HdU+QktvuPVWWHDWlAnvoXlmC2C7VYJc= Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Allen Wirfs-Brock In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 16:00:48 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: To: Matt Miller (mamille2) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085) Cc: JSON WG Subject: Re: [Json] REMINDER - WGLC Ends 2013-10-11 X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 23:01:01 -0000 We really should avoid having two (Ecma-404 and rfc4627bis) normative = syntax specifications for JSON text. Since it is claimed that the = 4627bis ABNF recognizes the same language as that described by the = Ecma-404 syntax diagrams it would seem more appropriate for 4627bis to = narratively reference Ecma-404 and say that the 4627bis ABNF is an = informative restatement of the Ecma-404 syntax specification.=20 Notational preference really isn't a very good reason to have two = different normative definitions of the same thing.=20 Allen Wirfs-Brock= From tbray@textuality.com Fri Oct 11 16:07:12 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1A9911E8174 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 16:07:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.028 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.028 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.052, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8HwXHl292vNK for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 16:07:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vb0-f42.google.com (mail-vb0-f42.google.com [209.85.212.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CF0211E816B for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 16:07:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vb0-f42.google.com with SMTP id e12so3304486vbg.1 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 16:07:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=qPadJhYEmnZ900k8AJZSwIuPqw2n21PGtSNAliIj/PY=; b=Myv5ABsWprmQCFtPN3WQKba90oiBkCabkv6fKUXlQVdqdv+Iw43kj3/jZFgAmiyzow xu0CLxTcGD4929rM24hp/LGAvjsyFv9N+YW0D69K5WC8FQYx2xTLp/1F1E1ouqNlj8Zg eIITo1AVpa2eiadLrG7UHUoIwY31bdmnx1H/0tnTlDsZpy0GnNKi5qwe7nrtxaPG8SgF J2/fpS3F5FCGu+YA9gZ/W6Vmmr/r8Gz5ZF6m3zwjYWHhQmNeoYiV5rL1FA2bXIPEJjS7 SeJQPxsVvvRhW4fSfwWMuFAaLdQwm9BZqTiikv6ijdc4gYaxWWMUBHPyvavo7XwLjSpl ZKfA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQllTJBQXDpmsuKudOmF6CfDK2sDMfSerwYZbXKWcbw/LSB8RgMm6dbmBW9BToAlHTq91r3R MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.221.64.17 with SMTP id xg17mr23242332vcb.5.1381532826789; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 16:07:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.174.197 with HTTP; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 16:07:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [96.49.81.176] In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 16:07:06 -0700 Message-ID: From: Tim Bray To: Allen Wirfs-Brock Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1133158e62fa6604e87f2d3f Cc: JSON WG , Matt Miller Subject: Re: [Json] REMINDER - WGLC Ends 2013-10-11 X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 23:07:12 -0000 --001a1133158e62fa6604e87f2d3f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Since the normative definitions are isomorphic, there is no benefit to the reader in making them go somewhere else to discover what is already present in this document, and that would be the only effect of removing the syntax specification, especially since there is no intention anywhere that the syntax ever change. -T On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote: > We really should avoid having two (Ecma-404 and rfc4627bis) normative > syntax specifications for JSON text. Since it is claimed that the 4627bis > ABNF recognizes the same language as that described by the Ecma-404 syntax > diagrams it would seem more appropriate for 4627bis to narratively > reference Ecma-404 and say that the 4627bis ABNF is an informative > restatement of the Ecma-404 syntax specification. > > Notational preference really isn't a very good reason to have two > different normative definitions of the same thing. > > Allen Wirfs-Brock > _______________________________________________ > json mailing list > json@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json > --001a1133158e62fa6604e87f2d3f Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Since the normative definitions are isomorphic, there is n= o benefit to the reader in making them go somewhere else to discover what i= s already present in this document, and that would be the only effect of re= moving the syntax specification, especially since there is no intention any= where that the syntax ever change.=C2=A0 -T


On Fri, Oct 1= 1, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen@wirfs-brock.com> wrote:
We really should avoid having two (Ecma-404 = and rfc4627bis) normative syntax specifications for JSON text. =C2=A0Since = it is claimed that the 4627bis ABNF recognizes the same language as that de= scribed by the Ecma-404 syntax diagrams it would seem more appropriate for = 4627bis to narratively reference Ecma-404 and say that the 4627bis ABNF is = an informative restatement of the Ecma-404 syntax specification.

Notational preference really isn't a very good reason to have =C2=A0two= different normative definitions of the same thing.

Allen Wirfs-Brock
_____________________= __________________________
json mailing list
json@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json

--001a1133158e62fa6604e87f2d3f-- From stefan@drees.name Fri Oct 11 16:10:11 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE3E221E80B0 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 16:10:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eRI4lsQp9tb5 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 16:10:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mout.web.de (mout.web.de [212.227.15.4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 131D121E8084 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 16:09:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from newyork.local.box ([77.11.6.84]) by smtp.web.de (mrweb002) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0M9XbT-1VdKpf3fqB-00D37r for ; Sat, 12 Oct 2013 01:09:57 +0200 Message-ID: <52588542.8040703@drees.name> Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 01:09:54 +0200 From: Stefan Drees User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: json@ietf.org References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:E1TLql0ARc4NvrCExhp/BJA6/joj+8P+I3yHqvrl107DzOEK+4J 8gMQBoQTqvxg80pzbyuiZGpM0Q4BbeXh3Q7D0HS5ozlXpKWi2fNOILGPm1izHpO6cgxL7qS XmKwD+it+1gs9oGjAUVxoYfocy7rl3JiP/E96y1zSawkxlK72fvTklvX3eamL0//4AYBnDL qHDupTQkWfRADuFd0VaXQ== Subject: Re: [Json] REMINDER - WGLC Ends 2013-10-11 X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: stefan@drees.name List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 23:10:11 -0000 I think, the draft is good enough. {"Stefan"} On 2013-10-12 00:13 +02:00, Tim Bray wrote: > WFM > > > On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Matt Miller (mamille2) > wrote: > >> /me doffs hat >> >> I think this document is ready for publication. I have one very minor nit: >> >> * 1.2. Specifications of JSON -- This section starts off with "A >> description of JSON in ECMAScript terms first appeared in version 5.1 of >> the ECMAScript specification [ECMA-262]...". However, it actually was >> first introduced to ECMA-262 with 5th Edition. >> >> If changing this is worthwhile, I would suggest that fragment change to "A >> description of JSON in ECMAScript terms exists in version 5.1 of the >> ECMAScript specification [ECMA-262]..." >> >> >> - m&m >> >> Matt Miller < mamille2@cisco.com > >> Cisco Systems, Inc. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> json mailing list >> json@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json >> >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > json mailing list > json@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json > From cabo@tzi.org Fri Oct 11 16:19:41 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E6EC11E8174 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 16:19:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.158 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.158 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.091, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id msKmI3Yha0XA for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 16:19:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3CB411E819A for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 16:19:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r9BNJM5J001492; Sat, 12 Oct 2013 01:19:22 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.217.105] (p54890CAC.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.137.12.172]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 583A3D13; Sat, 12 Oct 2013 01:19:22 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 01:19:21 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <2DBB0D99-FC9C-4D7E-BE6F-11A96684FEF1@tzi.org> References: To: Allen Wirfs-Brock X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) Cc: JSON WG , "Matt Miller \(mamille2\)" Subject: Re: [Json] REMINDER - WGLC Ends 2013-10-11 X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 23:19:41 -0000 On Oct 12, 2013, at 01:00, Allen Wirfs-Brock = wrote: > Notational preference The ABNF actually means something. If we were arguing this, I'd say that while the JSON grammar is simple = enough that the racetracks (plus the explanatory text) should not be = overly problematic, it would have been better if ECMA-404 had used them = as illustrations only and referenced RFC 4627 for the normative grammar = (as amended for the gratuitous change). But since Tim is right, we don't need to argue this. Gr=FC=DFe, Carsten From allen@wirfs-brock.com Fri Oct 11 16:21:40 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22C8F11E8194 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 16:21:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.638 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.638 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VnHx64QDHCiU for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 16:21:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org (mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org [204.13.248.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C876F11E819A for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 16:21:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 234.sub-70-210-129.myvzw.com ([70.210.129.234] helo=[10.185.65.103]) by mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org with esmtpsa (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1VUm1T-000OCc-CS; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 23:21:32 +0000 X-Mail-Handler: Dyn Standard SMTP by Dyn X-Originating-IP: 70.210.129.234 X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@dyndns.com (see http://www.dyndns.com/services/sendlabs/outbound_abuse.html for abuse reporting information) X-MHO-User: U2FsdGVkX18eWYQxLFjgwSm5lZF/lzi2hB1k2LfUASw= Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 16:21:25 -0700 Message-ID: From: Allen Wirfs-Brock To: Tim Bray MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--_com.android.email_1015786545825720" Cc: JSON WG , Matt Miller Subject: Re: [Json] REMINDER - WGLC Ends 2013-10-11 X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 23:21:40 -0000 ----_com.android.email_1015786545825720 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 SSBkaWRuJ3Qgc3VnZ2VzdCByZW1vdmluZyB0aGUgQUJORi4gSSBzdWdnZXN0ZWQgcmVsYWJlbGlu ZyBpdCBhcyBpbmZvcm1hdGl2ZS4gCgoKClRpbSBCcmF5IDx0YnJheUB0ZXh0dWFsaXR5LmNvbT4g d3JvdGU6Cgo+U2luY2UgdGhlIG5vcm1hdGl2ZSBkZWZpbml0aW9ucyBhcmUgaXNvbW9ycGhpYywg dGhlcmUgaXMgbm8gYmVuZWZpdCB0byB0aGUgcmVhZGVyIGluIG1ha2luZyB0aGVtIGdvIHNvbWV3 aGVyZSBlbHNlIHRvIGRpc2NvdmVyIHdoYXQgaXMgYWxyZWFkeSBwcmVzZW50IGluIHRoaXMgZG9j dW1lbnQsIGFuZCB0aGF0IHdvdWxkIGJlIHRoZSBvbmx5IGVmZmVjdCBvZiByZW1vdmluZyB0aGUg c3ludGF4IHNwZWNpZmljYXRpb24sIGVzcGVjaWFsbHkgc2luY2UgdGhlcmUgaXMgbm8gaW50ZW50 aW9uIGFueXdoZXJlIHRoYXQgdGhlIHN5bnRheCBldmVyIGNoYW5nZS7CoCAtVAo+Cj4KPgo+T24g RnJpLCBPY3QgMTEsIDIwMTMgYXQgNDowMCBQTSwgQWxsZW4gV2lyZnMtQnJvY2sgPGFsbGVuQHdp cmZzLWJyb2NrLmNvbT4gd3JvdGU6Cj4KPldlIHJlYWxseSBzaG91bGQgYXZvaWQgaGF2aW5nIHR3 byAoRWNtYS00MDQgYW5kIHJmYzQ2MjdiaXMpIG5vcm1hdGl2ZSBzeW50YXggc3BlY2lmaWNhdGlv bnMgZm9yIEpTT04gdGV4dC4gwqBTaW5jZSBpdCBpcyBjbGFpbWVkIHRoYXQgdGhlIDQ2MjdiaXMg QUJORiByZWNvZ25pemVzIHRoZSBzYW1lIGxhbmd1YWdlIGFzIHRoYXQgZGVzY3JpYmVkIGJ5IHRo ZSBFY21hLTQwNCBzeW50YXggZGlhZ3JhbXMgaXQgd291bGQgc2VlbSBtb3JlIGFwcHJvcHJpYXRl IGZvciA0NjI3YmlzIHRvIG5hcnJhdGl2ZWx5IHJlZmVyZW5jZSBFY21hLTQwNCBhbmQgc2F5IHRo YXQgdGhlIDQ2MjdiaXMgQUJORiBpcyBhbiBpbmZvcm1hdGl2ZSByZXN0YXRlbWVudCBvZiB0aGUg RWNtYS00MDQgc3ludGF4IHNwZWNpZmljYXRpb24uCj4KPk5vdGF0aW9uYWwgcHJlZmVyZW5jZSBy ZWFsbHkgaXNuJ3QgYSB2ZXJ5IGdvb2QgcmVhc29uIHRvIGhhdmUgwqB0d28gZGlmZmVyZW50IG5v cm1hdGl2ZSBkZWZpbml0aW9ucyBvZiB0aGUgc2FtZSB0aGluZy4KPgo+QWxsZW4gV2lyZnMtQnJv Y2sKPgo+X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18KPmpz b24gbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0Cj5qc29uQGlldGYub3JnCj5odHRwczovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9tYWls bWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL2pzb24KPgo+Cg== ----_com.android.email_1015786545825720 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 SSBkaWRuJiMzOTt0IHN1Z2dlc3QgcmVtb3ZpbmcgdGhlIEFCTkYuIEkgc3VnZ2VzdGVkIHJlbGFi ZWxpbmcgaXQgYXMgaW5mb3JtYXRpdmUuIDxicj48YnI+PGJyPjxicj5UaW0gQnJheSAmbHQ7dGJy YXlAdGV4dHVhbGl0eS5jb20mZ3Q7IHdyb3RlOjxicj48YnI+PGRpdiBkaXI9Imx0ciI+U2luY2Ug dGhlIG5vcm1hdGl2ZSBkZWZpbml0aW9ucyBhcmUgaXNvbW9ycGhpYywgdGhlcmUgaXMgbm8gYmVu ZWZpdCB0byB0aGUgcmVhZGVyIGluIG1ha2luZyB0aGVtIGdvIHNvbWV3aGVyZSBlbHNlIHRvIGRp c2NvdmVyIHdoYXQgaXMgYWxyZWFkeSBwcmVzZW50IGluIHRoaXMgZG9jdW1lbnQsIGFuZCB0aGF0 IHdvdWxkIGJlIHRoZSBvbmx5IGVmZmVjdCBvZiByZW1vdmluZyB0aGUgc3ludGF4IHNwZWNpZmlj YXRpb24sIGVzcGVjaWFsbHkgc2luY2UgdGhlcmUgaXMgbm8gaW50ZW50aW9uIGFueXdoZXJlIHRo YXQgdGhlIHN5bnRheCBldmVyIGNoYW5nZS7CoCAtVDxicj4NCjxkaXYgY2xhc3M9ImdtYWlsX2V4 dHJhIj48YnI+PGJyPjxkaXYgY2xhc3M9ImdtYWlsX3F1b3RlIj5PbiBGcmksIE9jdCAxMSwgMjAx MyBhdCA0OjAwIFBNLCBBbGxlbiBXaXJmcy1Ccm9jayA8c3BhbiBkaXI9Imx0ciI+Jmx0OzxhIGhy ZWY9Im1haWx0bzphbGxlbkB3aXJmcy1icm9jay5jb20iIHRhcmdldD0iX2JsYW5rIj5hbGxlbkB3 aXJmcy1icm9jay5jb208L2E+Jmd0Ozwvc3Bhbj4gd3JvdGU6PGJyPg0KPGJsb2NrcXVvdGUgY2xh c3M9ImdtYWlsX3F1b3RlIiBzdHlsZT0ibWFyZ2luOjAgMCAwIC44ZXg7Ym9yZGVyLWxlZnQ6MXB4 ICNjY2Mgc29saWQ7cGFkZGluZy1sZWZ0OjFleCI+V2UgcmVhbGx5IHNob3VsZCBhdm9pZCBoYXZp bmcgdHdvIChFY21hLTQwNCBhbmQgcmZjNDYyN2Jpcykgbm9ybWF0aXZlIHN5bnRheCBzcGVjaWZp Y2F0aW9ucyBmb3IgSlNPTiB0ZXh0LiDCoFNpbmNlIGl0IGlzIGNsYWltZWQgdGhhdCB0aGUgNDYy N2JpcyBBQk5GIHJlY29nbml6ZXMgdGhlIHNhbWUgbGFuZ3VhZ2UgYXMgdGhhdCBkZXNjcmliZWQg YnkgdGhlIEVjbWEtNDA0IHN5bnRheCBkaWFncmFtcyBpdCB3b3VsZCBzZWVtIG1vcmUgYXBwcm9w cmlhdGUgZm9yIDQ2MjdiaXMgdG8gbmFycmF0aXZlbHkgcmVmZXJlbmNlIEVjbWEtNDA0IGFuZCBz YXkgdGhhdCB0aGUgNDYyN2JpcyBBQk5GIGlzIGFuIGluZm9ybWF0aXZlIHJlc3RhdGVtZW50IG9m IHRoZSBFY21hLTQwNCBzeW50YXggc3BlY2lmaWNhdGlvbi48YnI+DQoNCjxicj4NCk5vdGF0aW9u YWwgcHJlZmVyZW5jZSByZWFsbHkgaXNuJiMzOTt0IGEgdmVyeSBnb29kIHJlYXNvbiB0byBoYXZl IMKgdHdvIGRpZmZlcmVudCBub3JtYXRpdmUgZGVmaW5pdGlvbnMgb2YgdGhlIHNhbWUgdGhpbmcu PGJyPg0KPHNwYW4gY2xhc3M9IkhPRW5aYiI+PGZvbnQgY29sb3I9IiM4ODg4ODgiPjxicj4NCkFs bGVuIFdpcmZzLUJyb2NrPGJyPg0KPC9mb250Pjwvc3Bhbj48ZGl2IGNsYXNzPSJIT0VuWmIiPjxk aXYgY2xhc3M9Img1Ij5fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fXzxicj4NCmpzb24gbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0PGJyPg0KPGEgaHJlZj0ibWFpbHRvOmpzb25AaWV0 Zi5vcmciPmpzb25AaWV0Zi5vcmc8L2E+PGJyPg0KPGEgaHJlZj0iaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5v cmcvbWFpbG1hbi9saXN0aW5mby9qc29uIiB0YXJnZXQ9Il9ibGFuayI+aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0 Zi5vcmcvbWFpbG1hbi9saXN0aW5mby9qc29uPC9hPjxicj4NCjwvZGl2PjwvZGl2PjwvYmxvY2tx dW90ZT48L2Rpdj48YnI+PC9kaXY+PC9kaXY+DQo= ----_com.android.email_1015786545825720-- From tbray@textuality.com Fri Oct 11 16:24:24 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CF0A11E819F for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 16:24:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.024 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.024 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.048, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id osfMYE7dyogO for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 16:24:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vc0-f175.google.com (mail-vc0-f175.google.com [209.85.220.175]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F6E111E8174 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 16:24:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vc0-f175.google.com with SMTP id ia6so2342594vcb.34 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 16:24:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=UkZp4oQYk7G6QGq5f9qgODGCJcTpzuw4Y2LBqlUNPOg=; b=b59SfWAAeuot3ULOUFGF7uRuEncnAzfmjDaQQ3W7wxAVyzM4e1dOakxK8mZWPVozSR ekMJ9xvlYu91hOvYgC/bJbRJaNmsWV8LXKk7JEeIHIr9ihHExpCxgolKrdoRZJOD99oX JY2iepde2QXMLrdySoHoG1RkMSS1DZ0RcEqw0xARKrtW2S90uF+0sjU/NPO1P3yJNHsj zTToXCp9yA7e296nf62KmOzGfjlTRso0gbylArafT8ZSCDKcrHmwGLYZhjnpIUtTKlpj V+gUHwR7Wsyd5WR9rGwkkLeIRukcaQtS/tij/2IeeOUWUK8dqYhYXqE1fOKweAh10T9X ChRg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm6/fwGpFyHnwbgjlzzpDZAG4vdLJyCv90WdlRr8oQIRcvBQLEZeKt2reSLig0RDe6pBzUk MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.220.43.19 with SMTP id u19mr23165001vce.3.1381533857988; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 16:24:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.174.197 with HTTP; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 16:24:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [96.49.81.176] In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 16:24:17 -0700 Message-ID: From: Tim Bray To: Allen Wirfs-Brock Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b3a914cd9d99004e87f6aeb Cc: JSON WG , Matt Miller Subject: Re: [Json] REMINDER - WGLC Ends 2013-10-11 X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 23:24:24 -0000 --047d7b3a914cd9d99004e87f6aeb Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Have a look at the =E2=80=9CSpecifications of JSON=E2=80=9D section. I thi= nk it makes it clear that there are multiple specifications of JSON, they are all in perfect harmony as to the syntactic elements of the language, and thus it would be counterproductive to suggest that the reader needs to go anywhere else to make sure they have it right. This is one of the nice things about working with JSON, there is no disagreement as to the syntax of the language. On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 4:21 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock w= rote: > I didn't suggest removing the ABNF. I suggested relabeling it as > informative. > > > > Tim Bray wrote: > > Since the normative definitions are isomorphic, there is no benefit to th= e > reader in making them go somewhere else to discover what is already prese= nt > in this document, and that would be the only effect of removing the synta= x > specification, especially since there is no intention anywhere that the > syntax ever change. -T > > > On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote: > >> We really should avoid having two (Ecma-404 and rfc4627bis) normative >> syntax specifications for JSON text. Since it is claimed that the 4627b= is >> ABNF recognizes the same language as that described by the Ecma-404 synt= ax >> diagrams it would seem more appropriate for 4627bis to narratively >> reference Ecma-404 and say that the 4627bis ABNF is an informative >> restatement of the Ecma-404 syntax specification. >> >> Notational preference really isn't a very good reason to have two >> different normative definitions of the same thing. >> >> Allen Wirfs-Brock >> _______________________________________________ >> json mailing list >> json@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json >> > > --047d7b3a914cd9d99004e87f6aeb Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Have a look at the =E2=80=9CSpecifications of JSON=E2=80= =9D section.=C2=A0 I think it makes it clear that there are multiple specif= ications of JSON, they are all in perfect harmony as to the syntactic eleme= nts of the language, and thus it would be counterproductive to suggest that= the reader needs to go anywhere else to make sure they have it right.=C2= =A0

This is one of the nice things about working with JSON, there is no dis= agreement as to the syntax of the language.


On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 4:21 PM, A= llen Wirfs-Brock <allen@wirfs-brock.com> wrote:
I didn't suggest removing the ABNF. I su= ggested relabeling it as informative.



Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com= > wrote:

Since the normative definitions are = isomorphic, there is no benefit to the reader in making them go somewhere e= lse to discover what is already present in this document, and that would be= the only effect of removing the syntax specification, especially since the= re is no intention anywhere that the syntax ever change.=C2=A0 -T


On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen@w= irfs-brock.com> wrote:
We really should avo= id having two (Ecma-404 and rfc4627bis) normative syntax specifications for= JSON text. =C2=A0Since it is claimed that the 4627bis ABNF recognizes the = same language as that described by the Ecma-404 syntax diagrams it would se= em more appropriate for 4627bis to narratively reference Ecma-404 and say t= hat the 4627bis ABNF is an informative restatement of the Ecma-404 syntax s= pecification.

Notational preference really isn't a very good reason to have =C2=A0two= different normative definitions of the same thing.

Allen Wirfs-Brock
___________________________= ____________________
json mailing list
json@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json


--047d7b3a914cd9d99004e87f6aeb-- From stefan@drees.name Fri Oct 11 16:32:29 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6216021F9EED for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 16:32:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mEuXGnHftGJr for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 16:32:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mout.web.de (mout.web.de [212.227.15.14]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6057A21F9ECA for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 16:32:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from newyork.local.box ([77.11.6.84]) by smtp.web.de (mrweb103) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0LaTaN-1WCODf0s7b-00mLst for ; Sat, 12 Oct 2013 01:32:21 +0200 Message-ID: <52588A72.7090700@drees.name> Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 01:32:02 +0200 From: Stefan Drees User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Carsten Bormann References: <2DBB0D99-FC9C-4D7E-BE6F-11A96684FEF1@tzi.org> In-Reply-To: <2DBB0D99-FC9C-4D7E-BE6F-11A96684FEF1@tzi.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:nerWMGmbuKVvkHKzDSCyU0/X4+jDXhOdA47+xxPx2Gl3Lfngf10 Uy9zum7KN1ruyd9wBRasRW37XXMyWwl9z2ztsIMVCf2gnUGfNhEMkNKSPF30w+ZRMPJeOHN WMZkOuIQ6MsE/Hu/VghLFGqwwbWzTKZnmp5VCPdVLBpg77r6j/dyv86bhGBE4SKOkbKpRZm yAxCGbZCRpDHe/2BjtqMQ== Cc: Allen Wirfs-Brock , "Matt Miller \(mamille2\)" , JSON WG Subject: Re: [Json] REMINDER - WGLC Ends 2013-10-11 X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: stefan@drees.name List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 23:32:29 -0000 +1 from me. {"Stefan"} On 2013-10-12 01:19 +02:00, Carsten Bormann wrote: > On Oct 12, 2013, at 01:00, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote: > >> Notational preference > > The ABNF actually means something. > > If we were arguing this, I'd say that while the JSON grammar is > simple enough that the racetracks (plus the explanatory text) should not be > overly problematic, it would have been better if ECMA-404 had used them > as illustrations only and referenced RFC 4627 for the normative grammar > (as amended for the gratuitous change). > > But since Tim is right, we don't need to argue this. > > Gre, Carsten ... From internet-drafts@ietf.org Fri Oct 11 16:50:21 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7ED8921F9FC8; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 16:50:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.565 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.565 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.035, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fIg43FxZENBZ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 16:50:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E24821F9DB0; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 16:50:19 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.80.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20131011235019.16052.33426.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 16:50:19 -0700 Cc: json@ietf.org Subject: [Json] I-D Action: draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-06.txt X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 23:50:21 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the JavaScript Object Notation Working Group = of the IETF. Title : The JSON Data Interchange Format Author(s) : Tim Bray Filename : draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-06.txt Pages : 14 Date : 2013-10-11 Abstract: JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) is a lightweight, text-based, language-independent data interchange format. It was derived from the ECMAScript Programming Language Standard. JSON defines a small set of formatting rules for the portable representation of structured data. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-06 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-06 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From tbray@textuality.com Fri Oct 11 16:52:57 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9336711E81B4 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 16:52:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.021 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.021 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.045, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1fdbPdzOre8E for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 16:52:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vb0-f49.google.com (mail-vb0-f49.google.com [209.85.212.49]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE39611E81A1 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 16:52:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vb0-f49.google.com with SMTP id w16so3183555vbb.8 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 16:52:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=/ZyZQp4Itza//MHchKYp8jBPN2TFxDZIuOSRsMNb8bw=; b=DmvtC8jqk+NhZvttu3PeIVrJ7W8gLgd/OgFJKkKjnNTJpD12ksspfaKsrFKOyx08uM esDzOwTyTiL0OEt/uIzZGhjGbCK6Hc17bL6n86fnTCBPnIp5fcLNdkPw2mur9/caA5hH JDtoX+YMgDkY/dfojfKsiI9VeaY+InyvtKUsuSwsP+l0IPS8lQV3UQHSOjqGuOso5iov F9EbHvp82YHQofIxQMGeHY1zgG/B9xQVR5KUcnnEdo9ZSBfjr4tRG9Fx3bmNwho4cZ5k uLuPnDxQFMjrq9kqlrq4rL3E5TtVuSIQea+35pIZ9WvFPTFu6uDYIKTX1g9MawINAcu1 yMLQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQna0Kn4QNpQSaphe90362rH6sVlWKzRH0Y/IwPtHXNXLm9nBxro7yA/K2L8M6M3L8dhM/Xe MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.52.118.73 with SMTP id kk9mr19466791vdb.13.1381535572291; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 16:52:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.174.197 with HTTP; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 16:52:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [96.49.81.176] In-Reply-To: <20131011235019.16052.33426.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> References: <20131011235019.16052.33426.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 16:52:52 -0700 Message-ID: From: Tim Bray To: "json@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0122f0f2080ad104e87fd199 Subject: Re: [Json] I-D Action: draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-06.txt X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 23:52:57 -0000 --089e0122f0f2080ad104e87fd199 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Real HTML at https://www.tbray.org/tmp/draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-06.html Also, here=E2=80=99s the list of changes from -05 - Un-quoted the number 100 in first example, and added a boolean field. - Fixed up examples of top-level JSON texts, and further tidied =E2=80=9CSpecifications of JSON=E2=80=9D section. - Further tidying in "IANA Considerations", replacing ASCII art with real XML contributed by Tony Hansen. - Repositioned closing paren of "ws" production in ABNF. - Moved "Changes from 4627 to end-matter. - Changed RFC4234 reference to 5234. - Added a reference to RFC4627 - Removed the changed in -03/04/05 sections On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 4:50 PM, wrote: > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > This draft is a work item of the JavaScript Object Notation Working Grou= p > of the IETF. > > Title : The JSON Data Interchange Format > Author(s) : Tim Bray > Filename : draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-06.txt > Pages : 14 > Date : 2013-10-11 > > Abstract: > JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) is a lightweight, text-based, > language-independent data interchange format. It was derived from > the ECMAScript Programming Language Standard. JSON defines a small > set of formatting rules for the portable representation of structured > data. > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis > > There's also a htmlized version available at: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-06 > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-06 > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of > submission > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > _______________________________________________ > json mailing list > json@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json > --089e0122f0f2080ad104e87fd199 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Real HTML at https://www.tbray.org/tmp/dra= ft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-06.html

Also, here=E2=80=99s the list of= changes from -05
  • Un-quoted the number 100= in first example, and added a boolean field.
  • Fixed up examples of top-level JSON texts, and furthe= r tidied =E2=80=9CSpecifications of JSON=E2=80=9D section.
  • Further tidying in "IANA Considerations", replacing ASCII art wit= h real XML contributed by Tony Hansen.
  • Repositioned closing paren of "ws" production in A= BNF.
  • Moved "Changes from 462= 7 to end-matter.
  • Changed= RFC4234 reference to 5234.
  • Added a reference to RFC4627
  • Removed the changed in -03/04/05 sections



On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 4:50 PM, <internet-drafts@ietf.org>= wrote:

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies.
=C2=A0This draft is a work item of the JavaScript Object Notation Working G= roup of the IETF.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Title =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 : The = JSON Data Interchange Format
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Author(s) =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 : Tim Bray
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Filename =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0: draft-iet= f-json-rfc4627bis-06.txt
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Pages =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 : 14 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Date =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0:= 2013-10-11

Abstract:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) is a lightweight, text-based= ,
=C2=A0 =C2=A0language-independent data interchange format. =C2=A0It was der= ived from
=C2=A0 =C2=A0the ECMAScript Programming Language Standard. =C2=A0JSON defin= es a small
=C2=A0 =C2=A0set of formatting rules for the portable representation of str= uctured
=C2=A0 =C2=A0data.


The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis<= /a>

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-06
A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-json-rfc4= 627bis-06


Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submissio= n
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp= .ietf.org/internet-drafts/

_______________________________________________
json mailing list
json@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json

--089e0122f0f2080ad104e87fd199-- From derhoermi@gmx.net Fri Oct 11 17:04:13 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1CE121F9B65 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 17:04:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.926 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.926 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.673, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jrVPUpXGWLwo for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 17:04:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.21]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C9B511E8177 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 17:04:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from netb.Speedport_W_700V ([91.35.4.98]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx103) with ESMTPA (Nemesis) id 0MfEsY-1V7CKL1aaQ-00Om9Q for ; Sat, 12 Oct 2013 02:03:59 +0200 From: Bjoern Hoehrmann To: Tim Bray Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 02:04:02 +0200 Message-ID: <713h595olqghb5hq13r3dqh7ss05l3p5ps@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 3.3/32.846 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:b0Cc/rONS2R6HM7qHmSZVPtsYnfxAgNFsqit65NkwvZh7Wm3+/L aoO6hKVWy0NEI/y0hTQR5gpamJwpuIW6LeW3m9ehk7WSLclWMrklZrvnviVpCubSpauzLNB UkWAB56DS3zeRKG19oCa4tWithBDXXDGDrspf2MrIt4MAzKQNpDyUWcWW6ZdXzqIPSl6NiM cLsC1jG35948JwJ3BEMyw== Cc: JSON WG Subject: Re: [Json] REMINDER - WGLC Ends 2013-10-11 X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 00:04:14 -0000 * Tim Bray wrote: >Have a look at the “Specifications of JSON” section. I think it makes it >clear that there are multiple specifications of JSON, they are all in >perfect harmony as to the syntactic elements of the language, and thus it >would be counterproductive to suggest that the reader needs to go anywhere >else to make sure they have it right. > >This is one of the nice things about working with JSON, there is no >disagreement as to the syntax of the language. The W3C specification for XML 1.0 says you cannot put a string like `1` at the top level of a document, you have to wrap it inside an element. So, if ECMA published their own specification for XML 1.0 that says the string `1` is a well-formed XML 1.0 document, and the W3C specification keeps saying the opposite, would you really describe that as perfect harmony with no disagreement about what constitutes a well-formed XML 1.0 document? What would your XML 1.0 processor do when asked to parse the string `1` in this scenario? Under ECMA-404 the string `1` is "JSON text" but it is not "JSON text" under the definition in RFC 4627 or draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-06. How is that different from the scenario above? I can't imagine you saying "This is one of the nice things about working with XML, some parsers accept the string `1` correctly as well-formed XML document, while some other processors correctly treat it as non-conforming garbage" but that is the situation we have with JSON. -- 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/ From nico@cryptonector.com Fri Oct 11 17:16:51 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D22D511E81A8 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 17:16:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.145 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.145 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.168, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yGWvYE5Xvnka for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 17:16:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from homiemail-a105.g.dreamhost.com (caiajhbdcaib.dreamhost.com [208.97.132.81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF41A11E81A1 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 17:16:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from homiemail-a105.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a105.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F29D2005D900 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 17:16:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h= mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from :to:cc:content-type; s=cryptonector.com; bh=0XNfMhHB/H75uZXvb4U4 3xrO3YU=; b=mHHiI6ldPtOF1V1fx2FJRiD/RzVo6ZeltGVhYQaBEh9xhsJpjxAW RvN/6awxj4rpq5EnXDyv4FNGaRnPcbRZVpA17/iOEBTi7dJCJt941u0nmaiI3Iyk FJUKPTPGFgRxd4iWlJ1uRlY4frSO9qOgmbilFWlw0n91Ykso7OMkOT8= Received: from mail-we0-f177.google.com (mail-we0-f177.google.com [74.125.82.177]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by homiemail-a105.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3A6302005D904 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 17:16:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-we0-f177.google.com with SMTP id x55so4873435wes.36 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 17:16:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=S612zZs8JULY9y+0l5hny6gO4EJjToR5fx0y+ePanKc=; b=ie4jVnOS2h+lyj3H3kPzhXnPUPly7tIJK1tKUL2luR814ykOO0VZjkNyXiDbhS4dP+ xg7bBDoGF8KNBYPb8QQDPltHO40wQmV2IdlwU556yJto883Tu0j0uNY0lRPNzzf+r+NT NRvmiPRRXoluf4E8BcJP3kJQRcox+ubpjc2i0BlZdPk0USHiefGw6KHzqAyimKgs0izS fUxtKUU/EbOidnvkXL/m+8AktQ0sQcZp4Kfy8UHmBA+9ZYPgO5mC/3XYYuBap6EWY+nn fwROBTd8s6hN37x1/dmrtetQr0FQ2y6gm2kkRTP4mKkZrY3411TtUtdXkLuReXUlp/3p cT5A== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.182.82 with SMTP id ec18mr5175975wic.13.1381537004429; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 17:16:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.165.5 with HTTP; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 17:16:44 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 19:16:44 -0500 Message-ID: From: Nico Williams To: Tim Bray Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: Allen Wirfs-Brock , Matt Miller , JSON WG Subject: Re: [Json] REMINDER - WGLC Ends 2013-10-11 X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 00:16:52 -0000 On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 6:07 PM, Tim Bray wrote: > Since the normative definitions are isomorphic, there is no benefit to the Ignoring the difference regarding top-level values, has this been shown? If they are isomorphic, which ABNF definition is better, for any value of "better" (subjective, objective under any specific criteria)? Nico -- From tbray@textuality.com Fri Oct 11 19:04:16 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 226F621E813E for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 19:04:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.853 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.853 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.123, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E-CZy2Nl-MVE for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 19:04:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vb0-f54.google.com (mail-vb0-f54.google.com [209.85.212.54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D3FF21F9E2B for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 19:04:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vb0-f54.google.com with SMTP id q14so3414000vbe.27 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 19:04:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=MwTOablUfqdBbd46VeVG9hvanB1Mb/U++zAYoYG8KWw=; b=ViVOHlpuN81G9vDwDFlT7JneWvEfdP/I30c1qxte7rG79QHJ3da7BJsH7wbBG769hJ Uss7AAFv2Utih46H88Csl2e3xFkDPvSuUvYfA5PLXLpjOMUVsolXPgtb6Bk7qpYudVCP cgg5qPVhug8nSEBQerTzOw7glAjMFueDSpRICeSHIShKepPhaAF4OkOCWqBZ4tOWZYS3 gRDN5XwhUC855IQ2XFpBhMKGSb/aqRoq0cH+WMncmq/HlSrIcs1a3QBbjOfnUGY9U6yy inCk5xP24dM0F1D83MO10gv9XDgR91R3QXVhTAhR6ryY60sJznXupe1YtM8ICRPR7U6R nhhw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkrbcjBY6bWYNx4g4NG+u4zMjfV1oCHs8isIU2d31GsnvThgdoqyPmascl2lA5LWhuv9oUP MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.52.69.204 with SMTP id g12mr19954638vdu.26.1381543450403; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 19:04:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.174.197 with HTTP; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 19:04:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [24.84.235.32] In-Reply-To: <713h595olqghb5hq13r3dqh7ss05l3p5ps@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de> References: <713h595olqghb5hq13r3dqh7ss05l3p5ps@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de> Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 19:04:10 -0700 Message-ID: From: Tim Bray To: Bjoern Hoehrmann Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf307c9faa9a82ae04e881a634 Cc: JSON WG Subject: Re: [Json] REMINDER - WGLC Ends 2013-10-11 X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 02:04:16 -0000 --20cf307c9faa9a82ae04e881a634 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Once again, check out https://www.tbray.org/tmp/draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-06.html#rfc.section.1.= 2- it is perfectly clear that the syntax is the same in all specs, with the difference that the ECMA flavor has not required JSON texts to be arrays or objects at the top level. This difference has existed for a long time, JSON has managed to prosper in the face of it, and there is no good reason to do anything about it aside from noting its existence. -T On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote= : > * Tim Bray wrote: > >Have a look at the =E2=80=9CSpecifications of JSON=E2=80=9D section. I = think it makes it > >clear that there are multiple specifications of JSON, they are all in > >perfect harmony as to the syntactic elements of the language, and thus i= t > >would be counterproductive to suggest that the reader needs to go anywhe= re > >else to make sure they have it right. > > > >This is one of the nice things about working with JSON, there is no > >disagreement as to the syntax of the language. > > The W3C specification for XML 1.0 says you cannot put a string like `1` > at the top level of a document, you have to wrap it inside an element. > > So, if ECMA published their own specification for XML 1.0 that says the > string `1` is a well-formed XML 1.0 document, and the W3C specification > keeps saying the opposite, would you really describe that as perfect > harmony with no disagreement about what constitutes a well-formed XML > 1.0 document? What would your XML 1.0 processor do when asked to parse > the string `1` in this scenario? > > Under ECMA-404 the string `1` is "JSON text" but it is not "JSON text" > under the definition in RFC 4627 or draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-06. How > is that different from the scenario above? I can't imagine you saying > "This is one of the nice things about working with XML, some parsers > accept the string `1` correctly as well-formed XML document, while some > other processors correctly treat it as non-conforming garbage" but that > is the situation we have with JSON. > -- > Bj=C3=B6rn H=C3=B6hrmann =C2=B7 mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de =C2=B7 http://= bjoern.hoehrmann.de > Am Badedeich 7 =C2=B7 Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 =C2=B7 http://www.bjoern= sworld.de > 25899 Dageb=C3=BCll =C2=B7 PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 =C2=B7 http://www.w= ebsitedev.de/ > --20cf307c9faa9a82ae04e881a634 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Once again, check out https://www.tbray.org/= tmp/draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-06.html#rfc.section.1.2 - it is perfectl= y clear that the syntax is the same in all specs, with the difference that = the ECMA flavor has not required JSON texts to be arrays or objects at the = top level.=C2=A0 This difference has existed for a long time, JSON has mana= ged to prosper in the face of it, and there is no good reason to do anythin= g about it aside from noting its existence. -T


On Fri,= Oct 11, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote:
* Tim Bray wrote:
>Have a look at the =E2=80=9CSpecifications of JSON=E2=80=9D section. = =C2=A0I think it makes it
>clear that there are multiple specifications of JSON, they are all in >perfect harmony as to the syntactic elements of the language, and thus = it
>would be counterproductive to suggest that the reader needs to go anywh= ere
>else to make sure they have it right.
>
>This is one of the nice things about working with JSON, there is no
>disagreement as to the syntax of the language.

The W3C specification for XML 1.0 says you cannot put a string like `= 1`
at the top level of a document, you have to wrap it inside an element.

So, if ECMA published their own specification for XML 1.0 that says the
string `1` is a well-formed XML 1.0 document, and the W3C specification
keeps saying the opposite, would you really describe that as perfect
harmony with no disagreement about what constitutes a well-formed XML
1.0 document? What would your XML 1.0 processor do when asked to parse
the string `1` in this scenario?

Under ECMA-404 the string `1` is "JSON text" but it is not "= JSON text"
under the definition in RFC 4627 or draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-06. How
is that different from the scenario above? I can't imagine you saying "This is one of the nice things about working with XML, some parsers accept the string `1` correctly as well-formed XML document, while some
other processors correctly treat it as non-conforming garbage" but tha= t
is the situation we have with JSON.
--
Bj=C3=B6rn H=C3=B6hrmann =C2=B7 mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de =C2=B7 http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 =C2=B7 Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 =C2=B7 http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dageb=C3=BCll =C2=B7 PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 =C2=B7 http://www.websitedev.de/

--20cf307c9faa9a82ae04e881a634-- From tbray@textuality.com Fri Oct 11 19:06:28 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F041821E8140 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 19:06:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.864 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.864 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.112, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VRDP7dUdDI8j for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 19:06:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vb0-f42.google.com (mail-vb0-f42.google.com [209.85.212.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6274C21E813E for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 19:06:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vb0-f42.google.com with SMTP id e12so3416938vbg.1 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 19:06:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=DqXIBRGd9WsPmO/eLrA9W2l8v3UbtXBmpTpolCvRvYc=; b=lFSEiYPQ19TUbagFzCqqQJYEjOLWlwVGT+LwxSXRcei6YoGT8CcmFUip7lBGQNxMo2 t7YBL53+8f+iJw+f5quvUds5eziiBtFpm0OAv4z+annrouaVSpVk7/VYCDsz5Zujh9zL /SP9J4VF1/P6qa51kFoyanzPlNJjH2Aayk3SfPTLDOEEi8gdfPqPvkkakCOAgOOwrGAd wIbVbVb6W1QQszI1ATg13aH5sYTzNRzDiD2qJOJQLlV3DZEuHJVPOYriJk1U6pggiOVl hppZo9bvrbzFhBJbj1H3+yn0hwy9FHUveNE2w76QXQ/6cbE5Oh4tGGJOxwt1fFqb1N0r CkOg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl/VAUwPVYo6uV3vFrMRf2kvNiGXSt1+7odoQWfKqaMvMQqcrscml+Zl48U+4sPPhrAmpJn MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.52.69.204 with SMTP id g12mr19956878vdu.26.1381543573474; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 19:06:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.174.197 with HTTP; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 19:06:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [24.84.235.32] In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 19:06:13 -0700 Message-ID: From: Tim Bray To: Nico Williams Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf307c9faaf0820704e881ad98 Cc: Allen Wirfs-Brock , Matt Miller , JSON WG Subject: Re: [Json] REMINDER - WGLC Ends 2013-10-11 X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 02:06:28 -0000 --20cf307c9faaf0820704e881ad98 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Nico Williams wrote= : > On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 6:07 PM, Tim Bray wrote: > > Since the normative definitions are isomorphic, there is no benefit to > the > > Ignoring the difference regarding top-level values, has this been shown? > Yes, there is a huge body of empirical evidence, namely the vast number of JSON implementations which are observed to interoperate successfully. If they are isomorphic, which ABNF definition is better, for any value > of "better" (subjective, objective under any specific criteria)? > I can=E2=80=99t think of any serious arguments in favor of the proposition = that any is qualitatively better than the others. -T > > Nico > -- > --20cf307c9faaf0820704e881ad98 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Nico Williams <nic= o@cryptonector.com> wrote:
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 6:= 07 PM, Tim Bray <tbray@textualit= y.com> wrote:
> Since the normative definitions are isomorphic, there is no benefit to= the

Ignoring the difference regarding top-level values, has this been sho= wn?

Yes, there is a huge body of empiri= cal evidence, namely the vast number of JSON implementations which are obse= rved to interoperate successfully.

If they are isomorphic, which ABNF definition is better, for any value
of "better" (subjective, objective under any specific criteria)?<= br>

I can=E2=80=99t think of any serious ar= guments in favor of the proposition that any is qualitatively better than t= he others.=C2=A0 -T
=C2=A0

Nico
--

--20cf307c9faaf0820704e881ad98-- From sayrer@gmail.com Fri Oct 11 19:07:45 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BA1821E813F for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 19:07:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.233 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.233 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.366, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xKpQoJ0rSRoF for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 19:07:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qc0-x232.google.com (mail-qc0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8247D21E8119 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 19:07:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qc0-f178.google.com with SMTP id r5so3523846qcx.37 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 19:07:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=a7qZivHNoxzb2p2MigWBMhOf59e/dbWJUb+1zGMTaRI=; b=R2Trtqa/FXLbMtOOhka8eyKGB7j8nli9qqnz6o6ueJpq7x65eSQ1ipZW6qM3Q++Bjz SNALMqgZFoMm3PsVEZf5M7f1UWLIwH80UBqQFNsQuUcZ/6i5ram5tmFXVMg+6cTLMqZO YF6n1Q5M87faTKOqVc0dvcI6RKCBG3u2S4Tx2idQQKFjKiq5ZhDAKOyO94/AWqRKfq8e 5LajN9meSdpn6X0g92diu/EmQkOw09UMoOTOu81M2+m9utHJD6SqutRG29ZQExSR6OJE qx/QTfLSHBNg59WfAa6wxZ7YhsKl3JjNEs8kbggRHWRY6AMrWDA0wMC2xmiyW1dtA0t2 A+1g== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.49.1.230 with SMTP id 6mr11951111qep.48.1381543663931; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 19:07:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.140.39.84 with HTTP; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 19:07:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.140.39.84 with HTTP; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 19:07:43 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <713h595olqghb5hq13r3dqh7ss05l3p5ps@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de> Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 19:07:43 -0700 Message-ID: From: R S To: Tim Bray Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b6783aa54b40304e881b397 Cc: Bjoern Hoehrmann , json@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Json] REMINDER - WGLC Ends 2013-10-11 X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 02:07:45 -0000 --047d7b6783aa54b40304e881b397 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I think Tim is correct. - Rob On Oct 11, 2013 7:04 PM, "Tim Bray" wrote: > Once again, check out > https://www.tbray.org/tmp/draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-06.html#rfc.section.= 1.2- it is perfectly clear that the syntax is the same in all specs, with t= he > difference that the ECMA flavor has not required JSON texts to be arrays = or > objects at the top level. This difference has existed for a long time, > JSON has managed to prosper in the face of it, and there is no good reaso= n > to do anything about it aside from noting its existence. -T > > > On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrot= e: > >> * Tim Bray wrote: >> >Have a look at the =93Specifications of JSON=94 section. I think it ma= kes it >> >clear that there are multiple specifications of JSON, they are all in >> >perfect harmony as to the syntactic elements of the language, and thus = it >> >would be counterproductive to suggest that the reader needs to go >> anywhere >> >else to make sure they have it right. >> > >> >This is one of the nice things about working with JSON, there is no >> >disagreement as to the syntax of the language. >> >> The W3C specification for XML 1.0 says you cannot put a string like `1` >> at the top level of a document, you have to wrap it inside an element. >> >> So, if ECMA published their own specification for XML 1.0 that says the >> string `1` is a well-formed XML 1.0 document, and the W3C specification >> keeps saying the opposite, would you really describe that as perfect >> harmony with no disagreement about what constitutes a well-formed XML >> 1.0 document? What would your XML 1.0 processor do when asked to parse >> the string `1` in this scenario? >> >> Under ECMA-404 the string `1` is "JSON text" but it is not "JSON text" >> under the definition in RFC 4627 or draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-06. How >> is that different from the scenario above? I can't imagine you saying >> "This is one of the nice things about working with XML, some parsers >> accept the string `1` correctly as well-formed XML document, while some >> other processors correctly treat it as non-conforming garbage" but that >> is the situation we have with JSON. >> -- >> Bj=F6rn H=F6hrmann =B7 mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de =B7 http://bjoern.hoeh= rmann.de >> Am Badedeich 7 =B7 Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 =B7 http://www.bjoernsworl= d.de >> 25899 Dageb=FCll =B7 PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 =B7 http://www.websitede= v.de/ >> > > > _______________________________________________ > json mailing list > json@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json > > --047d7b6783aa54b40304e881b397 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I think Tim is correct.

- Rob

On Oct 11, 2013 7:04 PM, "Tim Bray" &l= t;tbray@textuality.com> wrot= e:


On Fri,= Oct 11, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote:
* Tim Bray wrote:
>Have a look at the =93Specifications of JSON=94 section. =A0I think it = makes it
>clear that there are multiple specifications of JSON, they are all in >perfect harmony as to the syntactic elements of the language, and thus = it
>would be counterproductive to suggest that the reader needs to go anywh= ere
>else to make sure they have it right.
>
>This is one of the nice things about working with JSON, there is no
>disagreement as to the syntax of the language.

The W3C specification for XML 1.0 says you cannot put a string like `= 1`
at the top level of a document, you have to wrap it inside an element.

So, if ECMA published their own specification for XML 1.0 that says the
string `1` is a well-formed XML 1.0 document, and the W3C specification
keeps saying the opposite, would you really describe that as perfect
harmony with no disagreement about what constitutes a well-formed XML
1.0 document? What would your XML 1.0 processor do when asked to parse
the string `1` in this scenario?

Under ECMA-404 the string `1` is "JSON text" but it is not "= JSON text"
under the definition in RFC 4627 or draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-06. How
is that different from the scenario above? I can't imagine you saying "This is one of the nice things about working with XML, some parsers accept the string `1` correctly as well-formed XML document, while some
other processors correctly treat it as non-conforming garbage" but tha= t
is the situation we have with JSON.
--
Bj=F6rn H=F6hrmann =B7 mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de =B7 http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 =B7 Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 =B7 http://www.bjoernsworld.de=
25899 Dageb=FCll =B7 PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 =B7 http://www.websitedev.de/


_______________________________________________
json mailing list
json@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json

--047d7b6783aa54b40304e881b397-- From lear@cisco.com Fri Oct 11 19:24:54 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EBF811E81DB for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 19:24:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.536 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.536 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.062, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9Se+X2eFQvav for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 19:24:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B5D711E8158 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 19:24:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4069; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1381544688; x=1382754288; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to; bh=YXDSNZN9g8y+nBRYMpPUBlXiYVr6wI0eJ0yJxWTkg3g=; b=BpomIzFUi96LDt6+7iEc7RXSMr5rmHwHgDAqouPsuQEzsgFcM1qUkx5C 3Ejcy+1jIrdNK+mEljA7h28uUek4Fk8thwDm7Yfa7wz+9WsMbUIK2k9Zm zxWACppNI1kXE5MYmtihUayLdj1RFhyS5e+NCXXD67Rp9ehDgYzKJLqXP g=; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,479,1378857600"; d="scan'208,217";a="271224014" Received: from rcdn-core2-1.cisco.com ([173.37.113.188]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 12 Oct 2013 02:24:47 +0000 Received: from elear-mac.home (rtp-vpn3-1590.cisco.com [10.82.222.61]) by rcdn-core2-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r9C2OkpO002304 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 12 Oct 2013 02:24:47 GMT Message-ID: <5258B2F4.6040502@cisco.com> Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 22:24:52 -0400 From: Eliot Lear User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Matt Miller (mamille2)" References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030508050104080409070000" Cc: JSON WG Subject: Re: [Json] REMINDER - WGLC Ends 2013-10-11 X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 02:24:54 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------030508050104080409070000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I have one unanswered technical question from earlier, when I wrote: > What I would suggest is that at the very least we understand the > differences, so that we know what we're getting into. I think John Cowan answered this question in part in his mail of October 8th (Re: [Json] FYI ECMA, W3C, IETF coordination on JSON) by stating that ECMA 404 is pretty much RFC 4627. Therefore, so long as we have in the draft an accurate and up-to-date list of changes, then at least we know if we are introducing interoperability problems. Section 1.3 sort of does this, but should be cleaned up to be succinct and limited to TECHNICAL changes ONLY. Other changes should be moved to the back. The key differences, therefore, are as follows: * No specific version of unicode. * Specific language on duplicate members * Discussion of character model * IEEE numbers and number ABNF Are those all the technical differences? Eliot On 10/9/13 11:21 PM, Matt Miller (mamille2) wrote: > A reminder that the current Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis officially ends on Friday, October 11. Please provide any feedback as soon as you can, even if it's "the draft is good enough". > > > Thanks! > > - Paul Hoffman and Matt Miller > > > > _______________________________________________ > json mailing list > json@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json --------------030508050104080409070000 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I have one unanswered technical question from earlier, when I wrote: 
What I would suggest is that at the very least we understand the
differences, so that we know what we're getting into.
I think John Cowan answered this question in part in his mail of October 8th (Re: [Json] FYI ECMA, W3C, IETF coordination on JSON) by stating that  ECMA 404 is pretty much RFC 4627.  Therefore, so long as we have in the draft an accurate and up-to-date list of changes, then at least we know if we are introducing interoperability problems.  Section 1.3 sort of does this, but should be cleaned up to be succinct and limited to TECHNICAL changes ONLY.  Other changes should be moved to the back.

The key differences, therefore, are as follows:
  • No specific version of unicode.
  • Specific language on duplicate members
  • Discussion of character model
  • IEEE numbers and number  ABNF


Are those all the technical differences?

Eliot



On 10/9/13 11:21 PM, Matt Miller (mamille2) wrote:
A reminder that the current Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis officially ends on Friday, October 11.  Please provide any feedback as soon as you can, even if it's "the draft is good enough".


Thanks!

- Paul Hoffman and Matt Miller




_______________________________________________
json mailing list
json@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json

--------------030508050104080409070000-- From tbray@textuality.com Fri Oct 11 19:34:41 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98FE711E81F4 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 19:34:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.874 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.874 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.102, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lJYIlf5Schjg for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 19:34:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vb0-f48.google.com (mail-vb0-f48.google.com [209.85.212.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5F6F11E8158 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 19:34:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vb0-f48.google.com with SMTP id w16so3301697vbf.7 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 19:34:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=o3dZFiCYG7Ov6RaeMW5YqHlCIYZGr6pCoFMqsQJ5ogY=; b=c5k5+fuUU40i/lTw3ziBecLMb+naY10yNVoeKrJ3FyRmRg+ZIQAXh3V6s+sH7kDl/Q F5/ZwgVWqXQHmzkyViJDeDKgHctYJWAIZh1h2as6kEll9Le1YXJw9a/tsn7yXjU3WtJ7 H4M/1ZbGWUYHkiGkGoq1thHwP0WHdqlZPs3zC/YsU9qPQ/3z6vsr/gPeuipkmAcZXF0Y uUNqhPigZ1xi77hesePmuiSTiUhqFk3fXiOL8JGkPM4N3k5LAMtgY/EqXeOfM41V7+8b gZOhy7FlF9M0jZalPS2uSlu+Nacnt5jotPvfGF9BGoZfu784WuT0WGSN9drGzLlcIaSy EFkg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnC43jBiNYisb+yXdtNi2IkMOYYGD3YBKDp13ejsEVsvy1u8ym3oGaRxbzHS8xJ6c9iW0jJ MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.52.170.232 with SMTP id ap8mr79687vdc.40.1381545275879; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 19:34:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.174.197 with HTTP; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 19:34:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [24.84.235.32] In-Reply-To: <5258B2F4.6040502@cisco.com> References: <5258B2F4.6040502@cisco.com> Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 19:34:35 -0700 Message-ID: From: Tim Bray To: Eliot Lear Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b6d7aae69040a04e882134b Cc: JSON WG , "Matt Miller \(mamille2\)" Subject: Re: [Json] REMINDER - WGLC Ends 2013-10-11 X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 02:34:41 -0000 --047d7b6d7aae69040a04e882134b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Note that those differences are not *normative*; they are simply explanations of which legal JSON idioms can increase the risk of interoperability problems. There remains no normative difference between any of the flavors of JSON except that the ECMA specs don=E2=80=99t require array/object at the top level. On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 7:24 PM, Eliot Lear wrote: > I have one unanswered technical question from earlier, when I wrote: > > What I would suggest is that at the very least we understand the > differences, so that we know what we're getting into. > > I think John Cowan answered this question in part in his mail of October > 8th (Re: [Json] FYI ECMA, W3C, IETF coordination on JSON) by stating that > ECMA 404 is pretty much RFC 4627. Therefore, so long as we have in the > draft an accurate and up-to-date list of changes, then at least we know i= f > we are introducing interoperability problems. Section 1.3 sort of does > this, but should be cleaned up to be succinct and limited to TECHNICAL > changes ONLY. Other changes should be moved to the back. > > The key differences, therefore, are as follows: > > - No specific version of unicode. > - Specific language on duplicate members > - Discussion of character model > - IEEE numbers and number ABNF > > > Are those all the technical differences? > > Eliot > > > On 10/9/13 11:21 PM, Matt Miller (mamille2) wrote: > > A reminder that the current Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-json-r= fc4627bis officially ends on Friday, October 11. Please provide any feedba= ck as soon as you can, even if it's "the draft is good enough". > > > Thanks! > > - Paul Hoffman and Matt Miller > > > > > _______________________________________________ > json mailing listjson@ietf.orghttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json > > > > _______________________________________________ > json mailing list > json@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json > > --047d7b6d7aae69040a04e882134b Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Note that those differences are not *normative*; they are = simply explanations of which legal JSON idioms can increase the risk of int= eroperability problems.=C2=A0 There remains no normative difference between= any of the flavors of JSON except that the ECMA specs don=E2=80=99t requir= e array/object at the top level.


On Fri,= Oct 11, 2013 at 7:24 PM, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> wrote:
=20 =20 =20
I have one unanswered technical question from earlier, when I wrote: 
What I would suggest is that at the very least we understand the
differences, so that we know what we're getting into.
I think John Cowan answered this question in part in his mail of October 8th (Re: [Json] FYI ECMA, W3C, IETF coordination on JSON) by stating that=C2=A0 ECMA 404 is pretty much RFC 4627.=C2=A0 Therefore, s= o long as we have in the draft an accurate and up-to-date list of changes, then at least we know if we are introducing interoperability problems.=C2=A0 Section 1.3 sort of does this, but should be cleaned up to be succinct and limited to TECHNICAL changes ONLY.=C2=A0 Other chang= es should be moved to the back.

The key differences, therefore, are as follows:
  • No specific version of unicode.
  • Specific language on duplicate members
  • Discussion of character model
  • IEEE numbers and number=C2=A0 ABNF


Are those all the technical differences?

Eliot



On 10/9/13 11:21 PM, Matt Miller (mamille2) wrote:
A reminder that the current Working Group Last Call for draft-ie=
tf-json-rfc4627bis officially ends on Friday, October 11.  Please provide a=
ny feedback as soon as you can, even if it's "the draft is good en=
ough".


Thanks!

- Paul Hoffman and Matt Miller




__________________________________=
_____________
json mailing list
json@ietf.org
ht=
tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json


_______________________________________________
json mailing list
json@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json


--047d7b6d7aae69040a04e882134b-- From paul.hoffman@vpnc.org Fri Oct 11 20:00:06 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA04611E8110 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 20:00:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Dsf64IlMy9GD for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 20:00:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8BBA11E80E6 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 20:00:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.20.30.90] (50-0-66-41.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.0.66.41]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id r9C3028b059771 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 11 Oct 2013 20:00:03 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: hoffman.proper.com: Host 50-0-66-41.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.0.66.41] claimed to be [10.20.30.90] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) From: Paul Hoffman In-Reply-To: <5258B2F4.6040502@cisco.com> Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 20:00:01 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <53DB134A-7340-43FF-8DC3-8192A1F4395A@vpnc.org> References: <5258B2F4.6040502@cisco.com> To: Eliot Lear X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) Cc: JSON WG Subject: Re: [Json] REMINDER - WGLC Ends 2013-10-11 X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 03:00:07 -0000 On Oct 11, 2013, at 7:24 PM, Eliot Lear wrote: > I have one unanswered technical question from earlier, when I wrote: >> What I would suggest is that at the very least we understand the >> differences, so that we know what we're getting into.=20 >>=20 > I think John Cowan answered this question in part in his mail of = October 8th (Re: [Json] FYI ECMA, W3C, IETF coordination on JSON) by = stating that ECMA 404 is pretty much RFC 4627. Therefore, so long as = we have in the draft an accurate and up-to-date list of changes, then at = least we know if we are introducing interoperability problems. =20 There are no technical changes between RFC 4627 and this draft, other = than the removal of the faulty sample regex in the Security = Considerations. There is one technical difference between RFC 4627 and ECMA-404: the = definition of "JSON text" in section 1.2. > Section 1.3 sort of does this, but should be cleaned up to be succinct = and limited to TECHNICAL changes ONLY. Other changes should be moved to = the back. >=20 > The key differences, therefore, are as follows: > =95 No specific version of unicode. > =95 Specific language on duplicate members > =95 Discussion of character model > =95 IEEE numbers and number ABNF These are not technical differences between this draft and ECMAScript, = nor between this draft and RFC 4627. They are helpful proposals to = developers where none of the specs are clear enough to be sure. --Paul Hoffman= From cowan@ccil.org Fri Oct 11 20:04:58 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1CBC21F9A71 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 20:04:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.705 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.705 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.106, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nE9sNzPnciEY for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 20:04:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from earth.ccil.org (earth.ccil.org [192.190.237.11]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D88C621F9CAE for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 20:04:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cowan by earth.ccil.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1VUpVZ-0000kc-9S; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 23:04:49 -0400 Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 23:04:49 -0400 From: John Cowan To: Jim Schaad Message-ID: <20131012030449.GA32619@mercury.ccil.org> References: <078c01cec6c5$d19fc990$74df5cb0$@augustcellars.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <078c01cec6c5$d19fc990$74df5cb0$@augustcellars.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: John Cowan Cc: 'JSON WG' Subject: Re: [Json] REMINDER - WGLC Ends 2013-10-11 X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 03:04:58 -0000 Jim Schaad scripsit: > 4. The following is technically a change in the grammar, however is > there a reason why an integer cannot be 00, but 1E00 is legal? Do we > want to change the definition of the exponent so that it matches that > of integer? I believe that 010 is forbidden because it's not clear if it means eight (as in C/C++/Java) or ten (as in programming languages from other traditions). 00 would mean the same thing in either case, but it's more uniform to simply forbid leading zeros (other than in the value 0, of course). -- Mark Twain on Cecil Rhodes: John Cowan I admire him, I freely admit it, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan and when his time comes I shall cowan@ccil.org buy a piece of the rope for a keepsake. From duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp Sat Oct 12 01:10:36 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED51121F9D46 for ; Sat, 12 Oct 2013 01:10:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.274 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.274 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.516, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LeCaIrgjfoFC for ; Sat, 12 Oct 2013 01:10:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scintmta02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (scintmta02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp [133.2.253.34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 015A221E80EA for ; Sat, 12 Oct 2013 01:10:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scmse02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp ([133.2.253.231]) by scintmta02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (secret/secret) with SMTP id r9C8A8Pc002007; Sat, 12 Oct 2013 17:10:09 +0900 Received: from (unknown [133.2.206.134]) by scmse02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp with smtp id 52f9_f3a9_b5dafbfa_3315_11e3_a730_001e6722eec2; Sat, 12 Oct 2013 17:10:08 +0900 Received: from [IPv6:::1] (unknown [133.2.210.1]) by itmail2.it.aoyama.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27BB3BF4E2; Sat, 12 Oct 2013 17:10:08 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <525903CF.3050000@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 17:09:51 +0900 From: =?UTF-8?B?Ik1hcnRpbiBKLiBEw7xyc3Qi?= Organization: Aoyama Gakuin University User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100722 Eudora/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tim Bray References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Nico Williams , "json@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Json] WGLC comment about numeric values X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 08:10:37 -0000 On 2013/10/12 6:08, Tim Bray wrote: > How=E2=80=99s this? > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > > This specification allows implementations to set limits on the range an= d > precision of numbers accepted. Fine up to here. > Since software which implements IEEE > 754-2008 binary64 (double precision) numbers [IEEE754]<#IEEE754> is > generally available and widely used, good interoperability can be achie= ved > by implementations which expect no more precision or range than these > provide, in the sense that implementations will approximate JSON number= s > within the expected precision. This sentence is just way too long. The referent of "these" in "than=20 these provide" is unclear. I suggest the following rewording: Software which implements IEEE 754-2008 binary64 (double precision)=20 numbers [IEEE754]<#IEEE754> is generally available and widely used. Therefore, good interoperability can be achieved by implementations=20 which expect no more precision or range than provided by these numbers. This means that implementations will approximate JSON numbers within the=20 expected precision. Regards, Martin. > A JSON number which is outside those bounds, > such as 1E400 or 3.141592653589793238462643383279, may indicate potenti= al > interoperability problems since it suggests that the software which cre= ated > it it expected greater magnitude or precision than is widely available. s/it it/it/ > Note that when such software is used, numbers which are integers and ar= e in > the range [-(2**53)+1, (2**53)-1] are interoperable in the sense that > implementations will agree exactly on their numeric values. > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > > > On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Tim Bray wrote: > >> Actually, I think the language should be adjusted to say, rather than >> generally =E2=80=9Csupports IEEE754=E2=80=9D, more specifically =E2=80= =9Csupports IEEE765 64-bit >> binary (double precision) numbers. Then the rest falls into place. >> >> >> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Nico Williams= wrote: >> >>> Note that when such software is used, numbers which are integers = and >>> are in the range [-(2**53)+1, (2**53)-1] are interoperable in the >>> sense that implementations will agree exactly on their numeric >>> values. >>> >>> s/implementations will/implementations most likely will/ >>> >>> (Because there are implementations that only support 32-bit integers.= ) >>> _______________________________________________ >>> json mailing list >>> json@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json >>> >> >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > json mailing list > json@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json From paul.hoffman@vpnc.org Tue Oct 15 19:51:53 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB97221F9D30 for ; Tue, 15 Oct 2013 19:51:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pN3jtxNChwRT for ; Tue, 15 Oct 2013 19:51:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C99711E8209 for ; Tue, 15 Oct 2013 19:51:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.20.30.90] (50-0-66-41.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.0.66.41]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id r9G2pqXF029191 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 15 Oct 2013 19:51:52 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: hoffman.proper.com: Host 50-0-66-41.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.0.66.41] claimed to be [10.20.30.90] From: Paul Hoffman Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <29850F92-23F1-4859-BB5A-BB5F1F20DD38@vpnc.org> Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 19:51:50 -0700 To: JSON WG Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) Subject: [Json] Possible next work for the WG X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 02:51:53 -0000 Greetings again. While our AD ponders the 4627bis document (probably on = its way to IETF Last Call), the Working Group can start to think about = what it wants to do next, if anything. The chairs have heard of at least = four topics that the WG might or might not want to add to its charter: - I-JSON (a profile of JSON with some interoperability issues nailed = down) - Best practices document for JSON implementers and folks who use JSON = in protocols - Canonicalization rules so that two JSON texts can be compared for = equality - Requirements for JSON schema (which will be needed before the WG = considers working on an actual schema) The chairs request general comments on these or additional topics for = the WG. If there is interest, we will re-open the topics on separate = threads, and then put together a proposal for rechartering. If people = really want this WG to shut down after 4627bis is done without doing = additional work, that is a valid view as well.=20 Note that we have also heard requests for non-compatible additions to = the JSON syntax, particularly for comments and byte-oriented data. If = the WG wanted to adopt this work, we would probably need to talk with = our ADs and the IAB because that might be better handled by Ecma in a = possible revsion to ECMA-404. --Matt Miller and Paul Hoffman From jorge@jorgechamorro.com Wed Oct 16 04:11:06 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21A3011E81AD for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 04:11:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 27mPJrxPS+KC for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 04:11:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wg0-f51.google.com (mail-wg0-f51.google.com [74.125.82.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C989221F9B66 for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 04:11:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wg0-f51.google.com with SMTP id l18so524476wgh.30 for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 04:10:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:mime-version:content-type:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to; bh=JvPpnFiQsZTfdK5T/5NIeR9sc/f31Bq6yxTT2fZpnCY=; b=ejs64NKqWFFjBjfeEivjttcHdzsNreZH4BlOQDr9iTzoNpVTEreoFiD32OsZqz0Cv5 cU6F7J+Jhvq6L9N7k8FuHQqPQ8xTeg0eA/QDbJu7iXtFmYyElK4jVbTc3hNgkRtrbUPG Kx9239ejhdCdzaXkwqLfeM9pqP105QEtDqeB81cpVncrzzQP5b1K1u074feYsDuD5lBK LYzwmmgMF9GYR319lax8gGHJbC6JsZA9UGrv4Feb7YxqNqbBfD+5OhyYVdfMGzQk7H+u tQ+Je1HBikuvVLbwvfGm5/J+pyFyAprf+Cc8zjB85LJLDki/xZYnBOl/BgaoKqz7ANEM zi6g== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm6GgCfeITOA/03AI5fdFC2WjQbNLNf3pob2/npbTDakt0rpKr3C+Kn2aLoCnzW2QV+X4ke X-Received: by 10.180.160.212 with SMTP id xm20mr1774358wib.23.1381921859657; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 04:10:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.10.50] (200.Red-83-40-29.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net. [83.40.29.200]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id e1sm4846501wij.6.2013.10.16.04.10.58 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 16 Oct 2013 04:10:59 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Jorge Chamorro In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 13:10:58 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: References: <20131011235019.16052.33426.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> To: Tim Bray X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085) Cc: "json@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Json] I-D Action: draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-06.txt X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 11:11:06 -0000 On 12/10/2013, at 01:52, Tim Bray wrote: > Real HTML at https://www.tbray.org/tmp/draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-06.html { "precision": "zip", "Latitude": 37.371991, "Longitude": -122.026020, "Address": "", "City": "SUNNYVALE", "State": "CA", "Zip": "94085", "Country": "US" } Whose address is that? :-) -- ( Jorge )(); From jorge@jorgechamorro.com Wed Oct 16 04:12:58 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7F1811E81CA for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 04:12:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rBktItLoOnCs for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 04:12:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-we0-f180.google.com (mail-we0-f180.google.com [74.125.82.180]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AF4F11E8242 for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 04:12:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-we0-f180.google.com with SMTP id q59so536240wes.11 for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 04:12:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:mime-version:content-type:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to; bh=zK7Z4iIAmnlACUHziOX9eMtnjScoBMEHHx5FHM88v8U=; b=j/BjcPw4Whtz89KUQBQ9TD4NWpQpslLcd5GWFxL8yTqmzNS/slo5Wf8D0VqmaPh9Pr ofJokREuFNBhl2BaJDiekoVqcevAmoPY79yl3zJTdxlkJpXO4lCjBUfNQ8DLuR4i0Ty8 Xn3pVdcZTSRgK3U2Gx6BH8Jadr7b3ChUkePgNsskLQFhx1wnjBmXHGzq12HI6Qq2BfAq rNHawXxbgraGqiJAhKHs7cqVjGloeRQA/TVowe/mA3GuQHeLneTlNyNzjeQv/JKKKc8D xvFLT3SvQ0apBueMzsrSJtMj35vKVberp7JI1uZfzsnsne80URy3uB/1sm01vYrqpdPP Zpjw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnp+ymgI+5ACbSmgmFRhjSyEIbsB+PJLcztJUiotVyCbKzuxGStbevS1mdxIIfEgrxsUW9n X-Received: by 10.180.10.8 with SMTP id e8mr1752231wib.65.1381921971096; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 04:12:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.10.50] (200.Red-83-40-29.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net. [83.40.29.200]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id bs15sm4839906wib.10.2013.10.16.04.12.50 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 16 Oct 2013 04:12:50 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Jorge Chamorro In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 13:12:49 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <20131011235019.16052.33426.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> To: Tim Bray X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085) Cc: "json@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Json] I-D Action: draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-06.txt X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 11:12:58 -0000 On 12/10/2013, at 01:52, Tim Bray wrote: > Real HTML at = https://www.tbray.org/tmp/draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-06.html In 15.2, the links of [ECMA-262] European Computer Manufacturers Association, "ECMAScript = Language Specification 5.1 Edition ", June 2011. [ECMA-404] Ecma International, "The JSON Data Interchange Format ", = October 2013. Are missing. --=20 ( Jorge )();= From cowan@ccil.org Wed Oct 16 09:54:11 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE21111E814D for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 09:54:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.693 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.693 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.094, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RuKcrHEzxR5K for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 09:54:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from earth.ccil.org (earth.ccil.org [192.190.237.11]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFC0111E8138 for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 09:54:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cowan by earth.ccil.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1VWUMI-0005OK-DY; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 12:54:06 -0400 Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 12:54:06 -0400 From: John Cowan To: Paul Hoffman Message-ID: <20131016165406.GA9701@mercury.ccil.org> References: <29850F92-23F1-4859-BB5A-BB5F1F20DD38@vpnc.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <29850F92-23F1-4859-BB5A-BB5F1F20DD38@vpnc.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: John Cowan Cc: JSON WG Subject: Re: [Json] Possible next work for the WG X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 16:54:12 -0000 Paul Hoffman scripsit: > - I-JSON (a profile of JSON with some interoperability issues nailed down) > > - Best practices document for JSON implementers and folks who use JSON > in protocols I think these are both worthy ideas, though perhaps they can be merged. > - Canonicalization rules so that two JSON texts can be compared for equality I think we should explore this, but it's going to be tricky. > - Requirements for JSON schema (which will be needed before the WG > considers working on an actual schema) As reinvented wheels are often hexagonal, I think if we are going to do this we should adopt draft-zyp-json-schema-04 as a base document for further work. This has now expired, but is still available at . I note that this draft proposes "application/schema+json" as the media type for JSON schemas. That leads me to believe we should make "*/*+json" official, parallel to "*/*+xml" per RFC 3023. I'll post on that separately. -- John Cowan cowan@ccil.org http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Is it not written, "That which is written, is written"? From paul.hoffman@vpnc.org Wed Oct 16 10:13:59 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8068411E8118 for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 10:13:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mWU389sR227R for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 10:13:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D9A511E8192 for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 10:13:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.20.30.90] (50-0-66-41.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.0.66.41]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id r9GHDsCJ063007 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 10:13:55 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: hoffman.proper.com: Host 50-0-66-41.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.0.66.41] claimed to be [10.20.30.90] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) From: Paul Hoffman In-Reply-To: <20131016165406.GA9701@mercury.ccil.org> Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 10:13:54 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <29850F92-23F1-4859-BB5A-BB5F1F20DD38@vpnc.org> <20131016165406.GA9701@mercury.ccil.org> To: JSON WG X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) Subject: Re: [Json] Possible next work for the WG X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 17:13:59 -0000 On Oct 16, 2013, at 9:54 AM, John Cowan wrote: >> - Requirements for JSON schema (which will be needed before the WG >> considers working on an actual schema) >=20 > As reinvented wheels are often hexagonal, I think if we are going to > do this we should adopt draft-zyp-json-schema-04 as a base document > for further work. =20 That draft is a specific schema proposal, not a set of requirements. If = the WG first agrees on a set of non-ocean-boiling requirements, = proposals to meet them will naturally follow. This would not be = reinventing: it would be designing from requirements instead of the = other way around. --Paul Hoffman= From markus.lanthaler@gmx.net Wed Oct 16 10:20:20 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33D7611E8192 for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 10:20:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.248 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.248 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.490, BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT=1.449, RCVD_ILLEGAL_IP=1.908] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fQCcRdS9Lvhr for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 10:20:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.19]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAD8011E8118 for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 10:20:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Vostro3500 ([2.34.217.54]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx002) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0Lxxw4-1VrF7X2wCq-015Jrn for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 19:20:04 +0200 From: "Markus Lanthaler" To: "'John Cowan'" , "'Paul Hoffman'" References: <29850F92-23F1-4859-BB5A-BB5F1F20DD38@vpnc.org> <20131016165406.GA9701@mercury.ccil.org> In-Reply-To: <20131016165406.GA9701@mercury.ccil.org> Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 19:19:59 +0200 Message-ID: <01ab01ceca93$f2281740$d67845c0$@lanthaler@gmx.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: Ac7KkFkkzzT47RoXSnOKEQQUghe8FwAAyk/g Content-Language: de X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:GR2vSOvEGbJV8jTkPGOt+obIWYTkknza43+JPAYzaHCCCdznnTI 87a/FEI1O2wTIGzGbyBP/bWv1CANQQTBdHCBn2ncOILixFjIeWUjnxbSR92irYxxPwf5Rp4 5fETLxia7wDfll6+8HTmFzrtTwD2h4WL9xZ4OPJKaBND05bUlgcYJSgQYby+yJKsZL3KCNS N1JNHjI8Jnxi35ICOvhig== Cc: 'JSON WG' Subject: Re: [Json] Possible next work for the WG X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 17:20:20 -0000 On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 6:54 PM, John Cowan > Paul Hoffman scripsit: > > > - I-JSON (a profile of JSON with some interoperability issues nailed down) > > > > - Best practices document for JSON implementers and folks who use JSON > > in protocols > > I think these are both worthy ideas, though perhaps they can be merged. Completely agree > > - Canonicalization rules so that two JSON texts can be compared for > equality > > I think we should explore this, but it's going to be tricky. +0 > > - Requirements for JSON schema (which will be needed before the WG > > considers working on an actual schema) > > As reinvented wheels are often hexagonal, I think if we are going to > do this we should adopt draft-zyp-json-schema-04 as a base document > for further work. This has now expired, but is still available at > validator/master/misc/specs/draft-zyp-json-schema-04.txt>. I don't think we should start work on this without someone (better yet, a group of people) actively pushing for it. Just look at the history of JSON Schema.. > I note that this draft proposes "application/schema+json" as the media > type for JSON schemas. That leads me to believe we should make > "*/*+json" > official, parallel to "*/*+xml" per RFC 3023. I'll post on that > separately. That has already been done in RFC6839 -- Markus Lanthaler @markuslanthaler From barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com Wed Oct 16 10:21:32 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7521521F849C for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 10:21:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.984 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.984 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.006, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DKi4pmlXfgZk for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 10:21:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lb0-x22b.google.com (mail-lb0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::22b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9163311E8182 for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 10:21:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lb0-f171.google.com with SMTP id u14so911619lbd.16 for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 10:21:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=xoh6Wg1ZzlpCx1eb5NqbKF9BQmywkWGWg2ENmOceDbc=; b=MxAMOlNoxA8ZnXjvJA6hl0L0F1nHrxhjNGysPxCZ/2FDOxESbj+NYdGms9GaUg33+c V4IPBNOA81833FfpxliXoOBABgW2KAKMztc/6DpqL5SN/zaM6LpEM8OhfOH2w+vcUZGO 7vX99HlpLtEnhfxh0z6vItaoJw+S4JCLgLCfcwxuv/HpXrB973GAmEcpBhdnzfLQ325Y CsYmImIvndRFeWzTHBOk1JfHtAbcQaEq1qrpgZtErv25jigxDX8i7qw/BF+pR+Ry7Xwm SeMIRsfq00C8DeC3aQlhapYrwpFYzxemO5wAvLukTGpIJnS+3jY5R/FMfY5cZh92Q3Ku NFiA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.202.167 with SMTP id kj7mr2234498lac.43.1381944087270; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 10:21:27 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com Received: by 10.112.134.232 with HTTP; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 10:21:27 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <29850F92-23F1-4859-BB5A-BB5F1F20DD38@vpnc.org> References: <29850F92-23F1-4859-BB5A-BB5F1F20DD38@vpnc.org> Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 13:21:27 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: -TrJg_LA4F0rGSoVPQQMsxsZH38 Message-ID: From: Barry Leiba To: Paul Hoffman Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: JSON WG Subject: Re: [Json] Possible next work for the WG X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 17:21:32 -0000 > Greetings again. While our AD ponders the 4627bis document > (probably on its way to IETF Last Call), the Working Group can > start to think about what it wants to do next, if anything. The > chairs have heard of at least four topics that the WG might or > might not want to add to its charter: ... > - Best practices document for JSON implementers and folks who > use JSON in protocols As I've mentioned, I'd like to do a document about guidelines for defining JSON objects in other documents/protocols, to make sure that we use JSON primitives for those definitions, and don't try to duplicate JSON grammar in ABNF. See Section 6.2 of draft-ietf-repute-media-type-13 (currently in the RFC Editor queue) for an example, and look at Section 6.1.1 of version -12 of that document for the ABNF version of how I think it should NOT be done. Such a document could be on its own, or it could be part of the best practices document Paul mentioned. Barry From tbray@textuality.com Wed Oct 16 10:25:00 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9214D21F8EC3 for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 10:25:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.019 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.019 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.043, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id r54SeCwyFj8l for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 10:24:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ve0-f178.google.com (mail-ve0-f178.google.com [209.85.128.178]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7331F11E81DA for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 10:24:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ve0-f178.google.com with SMTP id jy13so599515veb.9 for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 10:24:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=zPMo3j0SYLBlOgaOq7XN8XKRy9NB3YX4ZT7wT4AbYqE=; b=KO4ASIEfIX7R85kTeq/oUC/O5UZqE2rPLIsUs+tnd12JQDTcnRKdH7OId20Br6zaUR UnFUjmuARK0xWimDXyzkdMbI0Oo6T+G549kTc/wChBv0Cvzzwh3IIChKGjvdmQIbAtNJ V+f80KgMQviSX5+rMgiZDNDBPVD/824PkT8jmrZIcTuoA551ktT9cfzR7x+n6DcdlFjP 8TJzujZgtTyMExuzv72x0cJTtFn6dOvr/WoODchlXaHOVYE8hgbb9X/i5o2dcew5wdzK O0H7xTIo13ArcX7LSIz+gVU1xClX7xP5PoVlUN3Ha5ifMzLRE0hc5UlADQYHaX2aVOt9 x56g== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnRJHwWve0ut1A/LFCXFYoTzwMpK64/rR5/fPM8uWoCGd6uBVEifExFe/qdb6FDE2pYN5hp MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.220.196.66 with SMTP id ef2mr3235816vcb.7.1381944253893; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 10:24:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.174.197 with HTTP; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 10:24:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [96.49.81.176] In-Reply-To: <29850F92-23F1-4859-BB5A-BB5F1F20DD38@vpnc.org> References: <29850F92-23F1-4859-BB5A-BB5F1F20DD38@vpnc.org> Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 10:24:13 -0700 Message-ID: From: Tim Bray To: Paul Hoffman Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1132e6e25a5dca04e8def8f0 Cc: JSON WG Subject: Re: [Json] Possible next work for the WG X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 17:25:00 -0000 --001a1132e6e25a5dca04e8def8f0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote= : > - I-JSON (a profile of JSON with some interoperability issues nailed down= ) > This, frankly, is the only real reason I=E2=80=99ve invested work in this g= roup and agreed to edit the -bis. I want something that people who really rely on getting clean JSON can point to and say =E2=80=9Cdo this=E2=80=9D and not h= ave to write any extra rules. - Best practices document for JSON implementers and folks who use JSON in > protocols > Nothing wrong with the idea, but I think that if we do the -bis and then I-JSON, it=E2=80=99d be superfluous. > - Canonicalization rules so that two JSON texts can be compared for > equality > History would seem to show that this requires substantial effort and has very modest pay-off. Also, there are lots of success stories around digitally-signed JSON already in deployment, which seems to weaken one of the use-cases for canonicalization. I=E2=80=99d argue for passing on it. > - Requirements for JSON schema (which will be needed before the WG > considers working on an actual schema) > I would argue against this because designing schema languages is a crushing amount of work and easy to get wrong. Also, in the domain I care about (RESTful protocol payloads) the benefit seems small. There is a certain amount of code you could remove, I suppose, of the form if json['person']['id-num'] =3D=3D nil // reject transaction with an error message about how the id-num is required end but pushing the Sysiphean schema-language-design rock up the hill feels like hitting a beetle with a boulder. > > The chairs request general comments on these or additional topics for the > WG. If there is interest, we will re-open the topics on separate threads, > and then put together a proposal for rechartering. If people really want > this WG to shut down after 4627bis is done without doing additional work, > that is a valid view as well. > > Note that we have also heard requests for non-compatible additions to the > JSON syntax, particularly for comments and byte-oriented data. If the WG > wanted to adopt this work, we would probably need to talk with our ADs an= d > the IAB because that might be better handled by Ecma in a possible revsio= n > to ECMA-404. > > --Matt Miller and Paul Hoffman > _______________________________________________ > json mailing list > json@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json > --001a1132e6e25a5dca04e8def8f0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Paul Hoffman <paul.h= offman@vpnc.org> wrote:
- I-JSON (a profile of JSON with some intero= perability issues nailed down)

This, fr= ankly, is the only real reason I=E2=80=99ve invested work in this group and= agreed to edit the -bis.=C2=A0 I want something that people who really rel= y on getting clean JSON can point to and say =E2=80=9Cdo this=E2=80=9D and = not have to write any extra rules.

- Best practices document for JSON implementers and folks who use JSON in p= rotocols

Nothing wrong with the idea, b= ut I think that if we do the -bis and then I-JSON, it=E2=80=99d be superflu= ous.
=C2=A0
- Canonicalization rules so that two JSON texts can be compared for equalit= y

History would seem to show that this = requires substantial effort and has very modest pay-off. Also, there are lo= ts of success stories around digitally-signed JSON already in deployment, w= hich seems to weaken one of the use-cases for canonicalization.=C2=A0 I=E2= =80=99d argue for passing on it.
=C2=A0
- Requirements for JSON schema (which will be needed before the WG consider= s working on an actual schema)

I would = argue against this because designing schema languages is a crushing amount = of work and easy to get wrong.=C2=A0 Also, in the domain I care about (REST= ful protocol payloads) the benefit seems small.=C2=A0 There is a certain am= ount of code you could remove, I suppose, of the form

if json['person']['id-num'] =3D=3D nil
=C2=A0 // reject transaction with an error message about how the i= d-num is required
end

but pushing the Sysip= hean schema-language-design rock up the hill feels like hitting a beetle wi= th a boulder.
=C2=A0

The chairs request general comments on these or additional topics for the W= G. If there is interest, we will re-open the topics on separate threads, an= d then put together a proposal for rechartering. If people really want this= WG to shut down after 4627bis is done without doing additional work, that = is a valid view as well.

Note that we have also heard requests for non-compatible additions to the J= SON syntax, particularly for comments and byte-oriented data. If the WG wan= ted to adopt this work, we would probably need to talk with our ADs and the= IAB because that might be better handled by Ecma in a possible revsion to = ECMA-404.

--Matt Miller and Paul Hoffman
_______________________________________________
json mailing list
json@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json

--001a1132e6e25a5dca04e8def8f0-- From cowan@ccil.org Wed Oct 16 10:25:53 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06DC511E822D for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 10:25:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.384 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.384 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.385, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_34=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q7TlXp+Bl+TZ for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 10:25:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from earth.ccil.org (earth.ccil.org [192.190.237.11]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D26311E82B4 for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 10:24:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cowan by earth.ccil.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1VWUq4-0000Gw-Dz for json@ietf.org; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 13:24:52 -0400 Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 13:24:52 -0400 From: John Cowan To: json@ietf.org Message-ID: <20131016172450.GB9701@mercury.ccil.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: John Cowan Subject: [Json] Moving the +json suffix registration to 4627bis X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 17:25:53 -0000 I know it's late in the process, but I think we should consider replacing the registration of the "+json" suffix in RFC 3869 with a fuller version in the next draft of 4627bis. At the moment, there are already 13 media types matching 'application/*+json' registered at IANA. Most of them in the vendor tree, but jrd+json, json-patch+json, and ld-json are are the IETF tree. Having everything relevant to JSON media types in one place will be convenient. Here is proposed text, drawn from draft-ietf-appsawg-xml-mediatypes-03, the current proposal for RFC3023bis, and suitably adjusted: This section supersedes the earlier registration of the "+json" suffix [RFC6839]. This specification recommends the use of a naming convention (a suffix of "+json") for identifying JSON-based media types, in line with the recognition in [RFC6838] of structured syntax name suffixes. This allows the use of generic JSON processors and technologies on a wide variety of different JSON document types at a minimum cost, using existing frameworks for media type registration. When a new media type is introduced for an JSON-based format, the name of the media type SHOULD end with "+json" unless generic JSON processing is in some way inappropriate for documents of the new type. This convention will allow applications that can process JSON generically to detect that the MIME entity is supposed to be an JSON document, verify this assumption by invoking some JSON processor, and then process the JSON document accordingly. Applications may match for types that represent JSON MIME entities by comparing the subtype to the pattern '*/*+json'. (However note that the "application/json" media type defined in this specification also represents JSON MIME entities while not conforming to the '*/*+json' pattern.) NOTE: Section 5.3.2 of HTTPbis [HTTPbis] does not support Accept headers of the form "Accept: */*+json" and so this header MUST NOT be used in this way. JSON generic processing is not always appropriate for JSON-based media types. For example, authors of some such media types may wish that the types remain entirely opaque except to applications that are specifically designed to deal with that media type. By NOT following the naming convention "+json", such media types can avoid JSON-generic processing. Since generic processing will be useful in many cases, however -- including in some situations that are difficult to predict ahead of time -- the "+json" convention is to be preferred unless there is some particularly compelling reason not to. The registration process for specific "+json" media types is described in [RFC6838]. The registrar for the IETF tree will encourage new JSON-based media type registrations in the IETF tree to follow this guideline. Registrars for other trees SHOULD follow this convention in order to ensure maximum interoperability of their JSON-based documents. Similarly, media subtypes that do not represent JSON MIME entities MUST NOT be allowed to register with a "+json" suffix. Then the actual registration text can come from RFC 3869 with adjustments: The media type structured syntax suffix registration form follows. See [RFC6838] for definitions of each of the registration form headings. Name: JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) +suffix: +json References: See Section 15 Encoding considerations: As explained in Section 8.1, JSON is allowed to be represented using UTF-8, UTF-16, or UTF-32. When JSON is written in UTF-8, JSON is 8bit compatible ([RFC2045]). When JSON is written in UTF-16 or UTF-32, JSON is binary ([RFC2045]). Fragment identifier considerations: The syntax and semantics of fragment identifiers specified for +json SHOULD be as specified for "application/json". (At publication of this document, there is no fragment identification syntax defined for "application/json".) The syntax and semantics for fragment identifiers for a specific "xxx/yyy+json" SHOULD be processed as follows: For cases defined in +json, where the fragment identifier resolves per the +json rules, then process as specified in +json. For cases defined in +json, where the fragment identifier does not resolve per the +json rules, then process as specified in "xxx/yyy+json". For cases not defined in +json, then process as specified in "xxx/yyy+json". Interoperability considerations: n/a Security considerations: See Section 12 Contact: JSON Working Group (apps-discuss@ietf.org) Author/Change controller: The JSON Working Group. IESG has change control over this registration. Some coordination with APPSAWG will be needed to achieve this. -- You know, you haven't stopped talking John Cowan since I came here. You must have been http://www.ccil.org/~cowan vaccinated with a phonograph needle. cowan@ccil.org --Rufus T. Firefly From tbray@textuality.com Wed Oct 16 10:26:27 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8638411E81E8 for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 10:26:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.017 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.017 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.041, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XsMxNjSoocKX for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 10:26:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vb0-f54.google.com (mail-vb0-f54.google.com [209.85.212.54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8603411E82EA for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 10:25:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vb0-f54.google.com with SMTP id q14so532155vbe.13 for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 10:25:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=G0O6yeo+ljJ0divRf0/FZUHgFtfgGlykS1KbdNiM0YU=; b=myBY8w6Njt29//nXGlv9Ba/tM1F3o0unS4DDJIiNPfBSImzBkh+Rpgzl9SLNp5EY61 g+MsDau43ejLMPa8CLLSK+3HuGJ5moTXybiegnoWWby1EWmXe6JRwbf3ySTZQ4eXfx1H pH30rgy0GYL17bSKPq2YZELcid84hMiCvoZUE+I9mlZqcCAXdH5Wp+5gKSE/Hw0aXLc9 6Fo+L9g3uNg3kwTME23+jDfn694M9ywYnok5TxgQkvNyEFB0xe3yVyMEfq2nCzg+h7bw us+aLmLoLBeOYjMita7BpXkHJFVPI0d2N9uXqBb6tA3daUDzf00/cafQdZc2yvfRYVsY YkHQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnTs7eClo/nf1pbfM4UDKtNJFUIJEBPb3l21YnNkaJl7L2PfjzM8jW8ZmoIy7dHQEGcPgHV MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.220.1.203 with SMTP id 11mr3179486vcg.15.1381944319397; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 10:25:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.174.197 with HTTP; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 10:25:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [96.49.81.176] In-Reply-To: References: <29850F92-23F1-4859-BB5A-BB5F1F20DD38@vpnc.org> Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 10:25:19 -0700 Message-ID: From: Tim Bray To: Barry Leiba Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3d3f441e4bc04e8defcc4 Cc: Paul Hoffman , JSON WG Subject: Re: [Json] Possible next work for the WG X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 17:26:27 -0000 --001a11c3d3f441e4bc04e8defcc4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 +1 to Barry. This would be super-useful, independent of whether we do I-JSON or not. On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 10:21 AM, Barry Leiba wrote: > > Greetings again. While our AD ponders the 4627bis document > > (probably on its way to IETF Last Call), the Working Group can > > start to think about what it wants to do next, if anything. The > > chairs have heard of at least four topics that the WG might or > > might not want to add to its charter: > ... > > - Best practices document for JSON implementers and folks who > > use JSON in protocols > > As I've mentioned, I'd like to do a document about guidelines for > defining JSON objects in other documents/protocols, to make sure that > we use JSON primitives for those definitions, and don't try to > duplicate JSON grammar in ABNF. See Section 6.2 of > draft-ietf-repute-media-type-13 (currently in the RFC Editor queue) > for an example, and look at Section 6.1.1 of version -12 of that > document for the ABNF version of how I think it should NOT be done. > > Such a document could be on its own, or it could be part of the best > practices document Paul mentioned. > > Barry > _______________________________________________ > json mailing list > json@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json > --001a11c3d3f441e4bc04e8defcc4 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
+1 to Barry. This would be super-useful, independent of wh= ether we do I-JSON or not.


On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 10:21 AM, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> wrote:
> Greetings again. Whil= e our AD ponders the 4627bis document
> (probably on its way to IETF Last Call), the Working Group can
> start to think about what it wants to do next, if anything. The
> chairs have heard of at least four topics that the WG might or
> might not want to add to its charter:
...
> - Best practices document for JSON implementers and = folks who
> use JSON in protocols

As I've mentioned, I'd like to do a document about guidelines= for
defining JSON objects in other documents/protocols, to make sure that
we use JSON primitives for those definitions, and don't try to
duplicate JSON grammar in ABNF. =C2=A0See Section 6.2 of
draft-ietf-repute-media-type-13 (currently in the RFC Editor queue)
for an example, and look at Section 6.1.1 of version -12 of that
document for the ABNF version of how I think it should NOT be done.

Such a document could be on its own, or it could be part of the best
practices document Paul mentioned.

Barry
_____________________= __________________________
json mailing list
json@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json

--001a11c3d3f441e4bc04e8defcc4-- From cowan@ccil.org Wed Oct 16 10:28:48 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42B3221F9AD8 for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 10:28:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.649 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BlgpylcmtF-g for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 10:28:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from earth.ccil.org (earth.ccil.org [192.190.237.11]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BDCE11E81E8 for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 10:28:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cowan by earth.ccil.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1VWUtb-0000Zj-S9; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 13:28:31 -0400 Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 13:28:31 -0400 From: John Cowan To: Paul Hoffman Message-ID: <20131016172831.GC9701@mercury.ccil.org> References: <29850F92-23F1-4859-BB5A-BB5F1F20DD38@vpnc.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <29850F92-23F1-4859-BB5A-BB5F1F20DD38@vpnc.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: John Cowan Cc: JSON WG Subject: Re: [Json] Possible next work for the WG X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 17:28:48 -0000 Paul Hoffman scripsit: > Greetings again. While our AD ponders the 4627bis document (probably on > its way to IETF Last Call), the Working Group can start to think about > what it wants to do next, if anything. The chairs have heard of at least > four topics that the WG might or might not want to add to its charter: application/json fragment identifiers should be added to this list. There seems to be a fairly mature proposal along the lines of the XPointer "element" scheme. Some people don't like it because you can't tell by examining a fragment id what type of JSON value it references. By the same token, however, you can't tell by examining a URI pointing to a JSON document what JSON type it references either. -- John Cowan cowan@ccil.org http://ccil.org/~cowan The whole of Gaul is quartered into three halves. --Julius Caesar From tbray@textuality.com Wed Oct 16 10:28:52 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EE2811E8289 for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 10:28:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.715 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.715 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.339, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_34=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TTITvm8Usadk for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 10:28:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vc0-f174.google.com (mail-vc0-f174.google.com [209.85.220.174]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85A2411E822D for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 10:28:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vc0-f174.google.com with SMTP id ie18so542361vcb.33 for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 10:28:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=x5bf23jsCE3QQSsqOd3JflqWWE2XwA/MwS/xZnN4HjE=; b=mhHb24xLWqA/uIN3EFbywBAh7XUm2aLEnbZXAWDYqZAwx1HHljC2KL43TMeUwZLpXP pzrF8S47P3Ad8OsdCkwHqL60HfrH41KgYulR/IABXoJFTtSiCVKbDD++8gsQ+T4HKk0R TdL0WA9y4/CbApvcf0g4MUiIdJbLDpFFnlNDXjg/HO0ZLwd3TIKsKpYt5X454mQgczOz 6T5leNhFP5eArp6DWVCKO7bb3YrcxDYc9bnT/JbtofJaSExdt04p5Mr3GrbvV7GyYShk ONZiqBdraK3XPCYvWbGj2EbCb9FGX1ZGvIq5H+f5Q1A2ahAFnSYxScEpt5KyIAcsWUfN Ocdg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkFrCQ6M3RO43E3PDHDEvigECKt2+SqwjsnZ/Qz7jDIrR5VtTIXD42Y2UH4vhl+4J3eeys/ MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.52.169.37 with SMTP id ab5mr1093485vdc.31.1381944519754; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 10:28:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.174.197 with HTTP; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 10:28:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [96.49.81.176] In-Reply-To: <20131016172450.GB9701@mercury.ccil.org> References: <20131016172450.GB9701@mercury.ccil.org> Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 10:28:39 -0700 Message-ID: From: Tim Bray To: John Cowan Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e016339d833179f04e8df08bb Cc: "json@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Json] Moving the +json suffix registration to 4627bis X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 17:28:53 -0000 --089e016339d833179f04e8df08bb Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable If we=E2=80=99re going to do this, could we add a =E2=80=9Cprofile=E2=80=9D= parameter for a future i-json or whatever? On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 10:24 AM, John Cowan wrote= : > I know it's late in the process, but I think we should consider replacing > the registration of the "+json" suffix in RFC 3869 with a fuller version > in the next draft of 4627bis. At the moment, there are already 13 media > types matching 'application/*+json' registered at IANA. Most of them > in the vendor tree, but jrd+json, json-patch+json, and ld-json are are > the IETF tree. Having everything relevant to JSON media types in one > place will be convenient. > > Here is proposed text, drawn from draft-ietf-appsawg-xml-mediatypes-03, > the current proposal for RFC3023bis, and suitably adjusted: > > This section supersedes the earlier registration of the "+json" suffix > [RFC6839]. > > This specification recommends the use of a naming convention (a > suffix of "+json") for identifying JSON-based media types, in line > with the recognition in [RFC6838] of structured syntax name suffixes. > This allows the use of generic JSON processors and technologies on > a wide variety of different JSON document types at a minimum cost, > using existing frameworks for media type registration. > > When a new media type is introduced for an JSON-based format, > the name of the media type SHOULD end with "+json" unless generic > JSON processing is in some way inappropriate for documents of the > new type. This convention will allow applications that can process > JSON generically to detect that the MIME entity is supposed to be an > JSON document, verify this assumption by invoking some JSON processor, > and then process the JSON document accordingly. Applications may matc= h > for types that represent JSON MIME entities by comparing the subtype > to the pattern '*/*+json'. (However note that the "application/json" > media type defined in this specification also represents JSON MIME > entities while not conforming to the '*/*+json' pattern.) > > NOTE: Section 5.3.2 of HTTPbis [HTTPbis] does not support Accept > headers of the form "Accept: */*+json" and so this header MUST > NOT be used in this way. > > JSON generic processing is not always appropriate for JSON-based > media types. For example, authors of some such media types may wish > that the types remain entirely opaque except to applications that are > specifically designed to deal with that media type. By NOT following > the naming convention "+json", such media types can avoid JSON-generic > processing. Since generic processing will be useful in many cases, > however -- including in some situations that are difficult to predict > ahead of time -- the "+json" convention is to be preferred unless > there is some particularly compelling reason not to. > > The registration process for specific "+json" media types is described > in [RFC6838]. The registrar for the IETF tree will encourage new > JSON-based media type registrations in the IETF tree to follow this > guideline. Registrars for other trees SHOULD follow this convention i= n > order to ensure maximum interoperability of their JSON-based documents= . > Similarly, media subtypes that do not represent JSON MIME entities > MUST NOT be allowed to register with a "+json" suffix. > > Then the actual registration text can come from RFC 3869 with adjustments= : > > The media type structured syntax suffix registration form follows. > See [RFC6838] for definitions of each of the registration form > headings. > > Name: JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) > > +suffix: +json > > References: See Section 15 > > Encoding considerations: > > As explained in Section 8.1, JSON is allowed to be represented > using UTF-8, UTF-16, or UTF-32. When JSON is written in UTF-8, > JSON is 8bit compatible ([RFC2045]). When JSON is written in > UTF-16 or UTF-32, JSON is binary ([RFC2045]). > > Fragment identifier considerations: > > The syntax and semantics of fragment identifiers specified for +jso= n > SHOULD be as specified for "application/json". (At publication of > this document, there is no fragment identification syntax defined > for "application/json".) > > The syntax and semantics for fragment identifiers for a specific > "xxx/yyy+json" SHOULD be processed as follows: > > For cases defined in +json, where the fragment identifier resolves > per the +json rules, then process as specified in +json. > > For cases defined in +json, where the fragment identifier does > not resolve per the +json rules, then process as specified in > "xxx/yyy+json". > > For cases not defined in +json, then process as specified in > "xxx/yyy+json". > > Interoperability considerations: n/a > > Security considerations: See Section 12 > > Contact: JSON Working Group (apps-discuss@ietf.org) > > Author/Change controller: > > The JSON Working Group. IESG has change control over this > registration. > > Some coordination with APPSAWG will be needed to achieve this. > > -- > You know, you haven't stopped talking John Cowan > since I came here. You must have been http://www.ccil.org/~cowa= n > vaccinated with a phonograph needle. cowan@ccil.org > --Rufus T. Firefly > _______________________________________________ > json mailing list > json@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json > --089e016339d833179f04e8df08bb Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
If we=E2=80=99re going to do this, could we add a =E2=80= =9Cprofile=E2=80=9D parameter for a future i-json or whatever?


On Wed, Oct 16, = 2013 at 10:24 AM, John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> w= rote:
I know it's late in the process, but I t= hink we should consider replacing
the registration of the "+json" suffix in RFC 3869 with a fuller = version
in the next draft of 4627bis. =C2=A0At the moment, there are already 13 med= ia
types matching 'application/*+json' registered at IANA. =C2=A0Most = of them
in the vendor tree, but jrd+json, json-patch+json, and ld-json are are
the IETF tree. =C2=A0Having everything relevant to JSON media types in one<= br> place will be convenient.

Here is proposed text, drawn from draft-ietf-appsawg-xml-mediatypes-03,
the current proposal for RFC3023bis, and suitably adjusted:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0This section supersedes the earlier registration of the "= +json" suffix
=C2=A0 =C2=A0[RFC6839].

=C2=A0 =C2=A0This specification recommends the use of a naming convention (= a
=C2=A0 =C2=A0suffix of "+json") for identifying JSON-based media = types, in line
=C2=A0 =C2=A0with the recognition in [RFC6838] of structured syntax name su= ffixes.
=C2=A0 =C2=A0This allows the use of generic JSON processors and technologie= s on
=C2=A0 =C2=A0a wide variety of different JSON document types at a minimum c= ost,
=C2=A0 =C2=A0using existing frameworks for media type registration.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0When a new media type is introduced for an JSON-based format,<= br> =C2=A0 =C2=A0the name of the media type SHOULD end with "+json" u= nless generic
=C2=A0 =C2=A0JSON processing is in some way inappropriate for documents of = the
=C2=A0 =C2=A0new type. =C2=A0This convention will allow applications that c= an process
=C2=A0 =C2=A0JSON generically to detect that the MIME entity is supposed to= be an
=C2=A0 =C2=A0JSON document, verify this assumption by invoking some JSON pr= ocessor,
=C2=A0 =C2=A0and then process the JSON document accordingly. =C2=A0Applicat= ions may match
=C2=A0 =C2=A0for types that represent JSON MIME entities by comparing the s= ubtype
=C2=A0 =C2=A0to the pattern '*/*+json'. =C2=A0(However note that th= e "application/json"
=C2=A0 =C2=A0media type defined in this specification also represents JSON = MIME
=C2=A0 =C2=A0entities while not conforming to the '*/*+json' patter= n.)

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 NOTE: Section 5.3.2 of HTTPbis [HTTPbis] does not supp= ort Accept
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 headers of the form "Accept: */*+json" and s= o this header MUST
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 NOT be used in this way.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0JSON generic processing is not always appropriate for JSON-bas= ed
=C2=A0 =C2=A0media types. =C2=A0For example, authors of some such media typ= es may wish
=C2=A0 =C2=A0that the types remain entirely opaque except to applications t= hat are
=C2=A0 =C2=A0specifically designed to deal with that media type. =C2=A0By N= OT following
=C2=A0 =C2=A0the naming convention "+json", such media types can = avoid JSON-generic
=C2=A0 =C2=A0processing. =C2=A0Since generic processing will be useful in m= any cases,
=C2=A0 =C2=A0however -- including in some situations that are difficult to = predict
=C2=A0 =C2=A0ahead of time -- the "+json" convention is to be pre= ferred unless
=C2=A0 =C2=A0there is some particularly compelling reason not to.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0The registration process for specific "+json" media = types is described
=C2=A0 =C2=A0in [RFC6838]. =C2=A0The registrar for the IETF tree will encou= rage new
=C2=A0 =C2=A0JSON-based media type registrations in the IETF tree to follow= this
=C2=A0 =C2=A0guideline. =C2=A0Registrars for other trees SHOULD follow this= convention in
=C2=A0 =C2=A0order to ensure maximum interoperability of their JSON-based d= ocuments.
=C2=A0 =C2=A0Similarly, media subtypes that do not represent JSON MIME enti= ties
=C2=A0 =C2=A0MUST NOT be allowed to register with a "+json" suffi= x.

Then the actual registration text can come from RFC 3869 with adjustments:<= br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0The media type structured syntax suffix registration form foll= ows.
=C2=A0 =C2=A0See [RFC6838] for definitions of each of the registration form=
=C2=A0 =C2=A0headings.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0Name: =C2=A0JavaScript Object Notation (JSON)

=C2=A0 =C2=A0+suffix: =C2=A0+json

=C2=A0 =C2=A0References: =C2=A0See Section 15

=C2=A0 =C2=A0Encoding considerations:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 As explained in Section 8.1, JSON is allowed to be rep= resented
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 using UTF-8, UTF-16, or UTF-32. =C2=A0When JSON is wri= tten in UTF-8,
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 JSON is 8bit compatible ([RFC2045]). =C2=A0When JSON i= s written in
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 UTF-16 or UTF-32, JSON is binary ([RFC2045]).

=C2=A0 =C2=A0Fragment identifier considerations:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 The syntax and semantics of fragment identifiers speci= fied for +json
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 SHOULD be as specified for "application/json"= ;. =C2=A0(At publication of
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 this document, there is no fragment identification syn= tax defined
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 for "application/json".)

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 The syntax and semantics for fragment identifiers for = a specific
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 "xxx/yyy+json" SHOULD be processed as follow= s:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 For cases defined in +json, where the fragment identif= ier resolves
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 per the +json rules, then process as specified in +jso= n.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0For cases defined in +json, where the fra= gment identifier does
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0not resolve per the +json rules, then pro= cess as specified in
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0"xxx/yyy+json".

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0For cases not defined in +json, then proc= ess as specified in
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0"xxx/yyy+json".

=C2=A0 =C2=A0Interoperability considerations: =C2=A0n/a

=C2=A0 =C2=A0Security considerations: =C2=A0See Section 12

=C2=A0 =C2=A0Contact: =C2=A0JSON Working Group (apps-discuss@ietf.org)

=C2=A0 =C2=A0Author/Change controller:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 The JSON Working Group. =C2=A0IESG has change control = over this
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 registration.

Some coordination with APPSAWG will be needed to achieve this.

--
You know, you haven't stopped talking =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 John Cowan
since I came here. You must have been =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 http://www.ccil.org/= ~cowan
vaccinated with a phonograph needle. =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0cowan@ccil.org
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 --Rufus T. Firefly
_______________________________________________
json mailing list
json@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json

--089e016339d833179f04e8df08bb-- From cyrus@daboo.name Wed Oct 16 10:41:20 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0806B11E82E2 for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 10:41:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VmZnTZ0mBGeG for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 10:41:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from daboo.name (daboo.name [173.13.55.49]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63C7311E8192 for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 10:41:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by daboo.name (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61D4E4E935E5; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 13:41:11 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at example.com Received: from daboo.name ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (daboo.name [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kxInOyqCy8cj; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 13:41:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from caldav.corp.apple.com (unknown [17.45.162.46]) by daboo.name (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6F47A4E935DA; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 13:41:09 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 13:41:04 -0400 From: Cyrus Daboo To: Barry Leiba , Paul Hoffman Message-ID: <4AA3150A764BF415C1DB9786@caldav.corp.apple.com> In-Reply-To: References: <29850F92-23F1-4859-BB5A-BB5F1F20DD38@vpnc.org> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.1.0a3 (Mac OS X) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; size=935 Cc: JSON WG Subject: Re: [Json] Possible next work for the WG X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 17:41:20 -0000 Hi Barry, --On October 16, 2013 at 1:21:27 PM -0400 Barry Leiba wrote: >> - Best practices document for JSON implementers and folks who >> use JSON in protocols > > As I've mentioned, I'd like to do a document about guidelines for > defining JSON objects in other documents/protocols, to make sure that > we use JSON primitives for those definitions, and don't try to > duplicate JSON grammar in ABNF. See Section 6.2 of > draft-ietf-repute-media-type-13 (currently in the RFC Editor queue) > for an example, and look at Section 6.1.1 of version -12 of that > document for the ABNF version of how I think it should NOT be done. Yes! And also please look at which makes use of as another way to describe the "format" of a JSON document. -- Cyrus Daboo From cromis@gmail.com Wed Oct 16 10:53:18 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB7E111E822D for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 10:53:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.978 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3CnpvYbvGxDh for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 10:53:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qa0-x22a.google.com (mail-qa0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c00::22a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A68A621F9D69 for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 10:53:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qa0-f42.google.com with SMTP id w8so4786066qac.1 for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 10:53:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=i9CPR1BZYAPlxbKDrb25OFbQlHP2fF0S7tFwwYPZrjE=; b=zyZ5cjUsnbGi/9A7xMTvXZ40MLqIeimDdSi7PXXe0Y8RGoljYiSWtROC8A7eEXx2SI ZdYJ1tLVYykzQ9URql9vm+P7Zq38UUMRiyY3vV+uzaQnWaefh6KfYHRhgfri0PXgH8n1 UeuItn2puBCRD8XfcI/4vRVIx58cd5wGyp/lUtxaLGPfoAxbmpydDK1gmuOu1XnIUCXd wu78s12Uzmp1zpnuhaWRvakbKDAo5uxlQ95VSPW5C8j+HrHX4o4srgSBz5riggAXtewy OuswKh3PEYE0mR2w+lgvhVM4fHGEN+o4QD05nVtNUwtTbWDak12Bbh0TBRO0ox1yBFit Q6xQ== X-Received: by 10.224.172.132 with SMTP id l4mr6569364qaz.22.1381945982166; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 10:53:02 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: cromis@gmail.com Received: by 10.49.107.3 with HTTP; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 10:52:42 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20131016165406.GA9701@mercury.ccil.org> References: <29850F92-23F1-4859-BB5A-BB5F1F20DD38@vpnc.org> <20131016165406.GA9701@mercury.ccil.org> From: Jacob Davies Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 10:52:42 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: QQbS_Imsgs7_MLZlMesn_shAlic Message-ID: To: John Cowan Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c253c05dac2204e8df5ffa Cc: Paul Hoffman , JSON WG Subject: Re: [Json] Possible next work for the WG X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 17:53:18 -0000 --001a11c253c05dac2204e8df5ffa Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 9:54 AM, John Cowan wrote: >> - Canonicalization rules so that two JSON texts can be compared for equality > > I think we should explore this, but it's going to be tricky. Very tricky if we stick to the idea that JSON is only a text format and does not describe an abstract data model. Who is to say whether 4.5 and 4.500 were supposed to be equivalent? 0 or -0? Or whether the ordering of keys in an object matters? (It matters to me that the order is preserved but not that it is included in equality comparisons, but that's just me.) > As reinvented wheels are often hexagonal, I think if we are going to > do this we should adopt draft-zyp-json-schema-04 as a base document > for further work. This has now expired, but is still available at > < https://raw.github.com/fge/json-schema-validator/master/misc/specs/draft-zyp-json-schema-04.txt >. How to phrase this: I would be curious how much actual use is made of JSON Schema or any other formal schema system for JSON. If there are people here who've found them useful, I think it would be interesting to discuss what kinds of uses they made of them. I don't know the history of JSON Schema but the specific link you point to is pretty obscure (i.e. provide no actual starting point for using it). An older draft seems to be a bit clearer: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zyp-json-schema-03 I find the syntax overly verbose and not very idiomatic - e.g. requiring: "name":{"type":"string"}, instead of just "name" : "string", and requiring an intermediate "properties" element when defining objects, but those could be fixed. --001a11c253c05dac2204e8df5ffa Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 9:54 AM, John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> wrote:
&g= t;> - Canonicalization rules so that two JSON texts can be compared for = equality
>
> I think we should explore this, but it's going to be trick= y.

Very tricky if we stick to the idea that JSON is only a text form= at and does not describe an abstract data model. Who is to say whether 4.5 = and 4.500 were supposed to be equivalent? 0 or -0? Or whether the ordering = of keys in an object matters? (It matters to me that the order is preserved= but not that it is included in equality comparisons, but that's just m= e.)

> As reinvented wheels are often hexagonal, I think if we are going = to
> do this we should adopt draft-zyp-json-schema-04 as a base docum= ent
> for further work. =A0This has now expired, but is still availab= le at
> <https://raw.github.com/fge/json-s= chema-validator/master/misc/specs/draft-zyp-json-schema-04.txt>.

How to phrase this: I would be curious how much actual use is made of J= SON Schema or any other formal schema system for JSON. If there are people = here who've found them useful, I think it would be interesting to discu= ss what kinds of uses they made of them.

I don't know the history of JSON Schema but the specific link you p= oint to is pretty obscure (i.e. provide no actual starting point for using = it). An older draft seems to be a bit clearer: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zyp-js= on-schema-03

I find the syntax overly verbose and not very idiomatic - e.g. requirin= g:

=A0 =A0"name":{"type":"string"},
instead of just "name" : "string", and= requiring an intermediate "properties" element when defining obj= ects, but those could be fixed.
--001a11c253c05dac2204e8df5ffa-- From tony@att.com Wed Oct 16 12:10:56 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E377021F996A for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 12:10:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.042 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.042 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.043, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_34=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hnSyWgB4QfiP for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 12:10:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from flpi406.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (egssmtp03.att.com [144.160.128.152]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2054E21F9C6A for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 12:10:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailgw1.maillennium.att.com (maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by egssmtp03.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r9GJAkb8007530 for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 12:10:47 -0700 Received: from [135.91.110.247] (ds135-91-110-247.dhcps.ugn.att.com[135.91.110.247]) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with ESMTP id <20131016191046gw100q0g6je> (Authid: tony); Wed, 16 Oct 2013 19:10:46 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.91.110.247] Message-ID: <525EE4B5.4040107@att.com> Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 15:10:45 -0400 From: Tony Hansen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: json@ietf.org References: <20131016172450.GB9701@mercury.ccil.org> In-Reply-To: <20131016172450.GB9701@mercury.ccil.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Json] Moving the +json suffix registration to 4627bis X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 19:10:57 -0000 On 10/16/2013 1:24 PM, John Cowan wrote: > I know it's late in the process, but I think we should consider replacing > the registration of the "+json" suffix in RFC 3869 with a fuller version > in the next draft of 4627bis. At the moment, there are already 13 media > types matching 'application/*+json' registered at IANA. Most of them > in the vendor tree, but jrd+json, json-patch+json, and ld-json are are > the IETF tree. Having everything relevant to JSON media types in one > place will be convenient. That's RFC 6839 above (and below), not RFC 3869. Are there any actual changes in what you have below? I'm not convinced that "having everything json in one place" is sufficient in and of itself to warrant this. > Here is proposed text, drawn from draft-ietf-appsawg-xml-mediatypes-03, > the current proposal for RFC3023bis, and suitably adjusted: > > This section supersedes the earlier registration of the "+json" suffix > [RFC6839]. > > This specification recommends the use of a naming convention (a > suffix of "+json") for identifying JSON-based media types, in line > with the recognition in [RFC6838] of structured syntax name suffixes. > This allows the use of generic JSON processors and technologies on > a wide variety of different JSON document types at a minimum cost, > using existing frameworks for media type registration. > > When a new media type is introduced for an JSON-based format, > the name of the media type SHOULD end with "+json" unless generic > JSON processing is in some way inappropriate for documents of the > new type. This convention will allow applications that can process > JSON generically to detect that the MIME entity is supposed to be an > JSON document, verify this assumption by invoking some JSON processor, > and then process the JSON document accordingly. Applications may match > for types that represent JSON MIME entities by comparing the subtype > to the pattern '*/*+json'. (However note that the "application/json" > media type defined in this specification also represents JSON MIME > entities while not conforming to the '*/*+json' pattern.) > > NOTE: Section 5.3.2 of HTTPbis [HTTPbis] does not support Accept > headers of the form "Accept: */*+json" and so this header MUST > NOT be used in this way. > > JSON generic processing is not always appropriate for JSON-based > media types. For example, authors of some such media types may wish > that the types remain entirely opaque except to applications that are > specifically designed to deal with that media type. By NOT following > the naming convention "+json", such media types can avoid JSON-generic > processing. Since generic processing will be useful in many cases, > however -- including in some situations that are difficult to predict > ahead of time -- the "+json" convention is to be preferred unless > there is some particularly compelling reason not to. > > The registration process for specific "+json" media types is described > in [RFC6838]. The registrar for the IETF tree will encourage new > JSON-based media type registrations in the IETF tree to follow this > guideline. Registrars for other trees SHOULD follow this convention in > order to ensure maximum interoperability of their JSON-based documents. > Similarly, media subtypes that do not represent JSON MIME entities > MUST NOT be allowed to register with a "+json" suffix. > Then the actual registration text can come from RFC 3869 with adjustments: > > The media type structured syntax suffix registration form follows. > See [RFC6838] for definitions of each of the registration form > headings. > > Name: JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) > > +suffix: +json > > References: See Section 15 > > Encoding considerations: > > As explained in Section 8.1, JSON is allowed to be represented > using UTF-8, UTF-16, or UTF-32. When JSON is written in UTF-8, > JSON is 8bit compatible ([RFC2045]). When JSON is written in > UTF-16 or UTF-32, JSON is binary ([RFC2045]). > > Fragment identifier considerations: > > The syntax and semantics of fragment identifiers specified for +json > SHOULD be as specified for "application/json". (At publication of > this document, there is no fragment identification syntax defined > for "application/json".) > > The syntax and semantics for fragment identifiers for a specific > "xxx/yyy+json" SHOULD be processed as follows: > > For cases defined in +json, where the fragment identifier resolves > per the +json rules, then process as specified in +json. > > For cases defined in +json, where the fragment identifier does > not resolve per the +json rules, then process as specified in > "xxx/yyy+json". > > For cases not defined in +json, then process as specified in > "xxx/yyy+json". > > Interoperability considerations: n/a > > Security considerations: See Section 12 > > Contact: JSON Working Group (apps-discuss@ietf.org) > > Author/Change controller: > > The JSON Working Group. IESG has change control over this > registration. IFF this were done, then jsonbis would have to add Updates: 6839 to it. Tim, that would be an additional attribute of the tag, as in Some coordination with APPSAWG will be needed to achieve this. I'm not sure what coordination you are envisioning that would be required. Tony Hansen From paul.hoffman@vpnc.org Thu Oct 17 08:53:14 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46D0111E8283 for ; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 08:53:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 18XxFzo3HnNd for ; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 08:53:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4BD511E827E for ; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 08:53:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.20.30.90] (50-0-66-41.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.0.66.41]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id r9HFrCeu004911 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 17 Oct 2013 08:53:13 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: hoffman.proper.com: Host 50-0-66-41.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.0.66.41] claimed to be [10.20.30.90] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) From: Paul Hoffman In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 08:53:11 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <29850F92-23F1-4859-BB5A-BB5F1F20DD38@vpnc.org> To: Tim Bray X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) Cc: JSON WG Subject: Re: [Json] Possible next work for the WG X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 15:53:14 -0000 On Oct 16, 2013, at 10:24 AM, Tim Bray wrote: > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Paul Hoffman = wrote: > - I-JSON (a profile of JSON with some interoperability issues nailed = down) >=20 > This, frankly, is the only real reason I=92ve invested work in this = group and agreed to edit the -bis. I want something that people who = really rely on getting clean JSON can point to and say =93do this=94 and = not have to write any extra rules. >=20 > - Best practices document for JSON implementers and folks who use JSON = in protocols >=20 > Nothing wrong with the idea, but I think that if we do the -bis and = then I-JSON, it=92d be superfluous.=20 Maybe combining the two parts in that bullet point (for JSON = implementers, for JSON use in protocols) was a bad idea. The latter has = nothing to do with what was in the earlier discussion of I-JSON. If the WG proceeds with I-JSON, do people have a feeling about what = might go into a best practices document for implementers that isn't in = I-JSON? --Paul Hoffman= From tbray@textuality.com Thu Oct 17 18:37:04 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C508511E8202 for ; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 18:37:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.588 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.588 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.788, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Hmd3kcpnrGA0 for ; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 18:36:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-la0-f51.google.com (mail-la0-f51.google.com [209.85.215.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A844411E812F for ; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 18:36:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-la0-f51.google.com with SMTP id hp15so150092lab.24 for ; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 18:36:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=lHzJcg6vLVN6Ss/jdVw6qTgR8Ytf0VP9JWIqnu01VUg=; b=ktKge2TbVbW3Skh4o7lJZMwht0woV/snBspQVnj2IsBQet/1AJtRubNXUjRrf1IVfC aG0hH3OS2ttHd3Sss6n97Hcd02l1lkijE836nJTGNMMgmlWvY+0/zrfSRKAPhfI2dfQO yTUIItOEEe++Hpq062t9GsfsK4uIl8MUyjBrsxfKl9/e790x1ESVzMytKNLzdTbTFUBp RcGrAWwTaj0t2MbeMisA7lYREyeimgMCcEdSSjWKHNkZR2sCPvpiSeAJxBrwM4nNL8Lm GhRctyF7uRwNk9PzSa/YAZNbl7CjnNL2Uty7kEWo++QNiAjbZtxdjiBC2y1RV4jkVzvL 9niA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkwBlIkk9hK3TBZ4RJIbApTXG8CYoP8zBAtZONXK55WnqWpvfl5uHtj6Yq+ra1ty/Vsyia8 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.153.11.134 with SMTP id ei6mr240132lad.38.1382060215571; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 18:36:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.10.200 with HTTP; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 18:36:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [24.84.235.32] Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 18:36:55 -0700 Message-ID: From: Tim Bray To: "json@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113456ea3523d704e8f9f8c0 Subject: [Json] Naked surrogates already banned? X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 01:37:04 -0000 --001a113456ea3523d704e8f9f8c0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I was looking closely at the 4627 text and just about convinced myself that it already bans {"a": "\uDEAD"} It says Any character may be escaped. If the character is in the Basic Multilingual Plane (U+0000 through U+FFFF), then it may be represented as a six-character sequence: a reverse solidus, followed by the lowercase letter u,... etc But U+DEAD is not a character. So a narrow reading would make that illegal. Not that any implementation I=E2=80=99ve encountered enforces tha= t. -T --001a113456ea3523d704e8f9f8c0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I was looking closely at the 4627 text and just = about convinced myself that it already bans

{"a": &q= uot;\uDEAD"}

It says Any character may be escaped. If the= character is in the Basic Multilingual Plane (U+0000 through U+FFFF), then= it may be represented as a six-character sequence: a reverse solidus, foll= owed by the lowercase letter u,... etc

But U+DEAD is not a character.=C2=A0 So a narrow reading would make tha= t illegal.=C2=A0 Not that any implementation I=E2=80=99ve encountered enfor= ces that. -T
--001a113456ea3523d704e8f9f8c0-- From stedolan@stedolan.net Thu Oct 17 19:00:03 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F33011E81BF for ; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 19:00:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.377 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.377 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TqxaHK+DqNIp for ; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 18:59:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ie0-f172.google.com (mail-ie0-f172.google.com [209.85.223.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 419FF11E81A6 for ; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 18:59:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ie0-f172.google.com with SMTP id tp5so5440763ieb.31 for ; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 18:59:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=8z7bNstEhRME8qKZYMfjtaIezSoIiJiD3Plr/KJq304=; b=RdziEkxbBXlOUpBbgf9TLM/U35FTDFYyeKsX8Qqv/HXstHK7YqiHCAQ/JcP56pNAme AAtjCXefljhz+o+H06vHxUZslCkN7W0DG0KI+HB6FYXVTWCZ/zQkwLS4I2ZfLJmyzdeZ CiU8ybYSvyui1VvL61nz4HEXGR0VG7Hvd3a86ktSf4AehRN6SaTdxgpn24Wn+sUgLc1x mNTdvaLHfi4kD5+qwbLRMAYkQqsMy83PZAv7eaZYGmfXGrYJfdPXtBNSsA2EzoAEyxHs cjR18yngNprHEc1kK9W9J2WhYJyKKypelvfLrHny5dQP30sMquNQMgz2pqLiLpnuH16I 04TA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnABvMgiDPn7PfCAzcEAoBPtQRNrWNqAXUdl3BIytMytX6kCzq3txSqtJCaOxWc0tbOvq3J MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.79.164 with SMTP id k4mr919713igx.10.1382061594594; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 18:59:54 -0700 (PDT) Sender: stedolan@stedolan.net Received: by 10.43.132.5 with HTTP; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 18:59:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [131.111.184.8] In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 02:59:54 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: lmTMYcSvzi4F5RFkO3Vh_r8UXBE Message-ID: From: Stephen Dolan To: Tim Bray Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "json@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Json] Naked surrogates already banned? X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 02:00:03 -0000 On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 2:36 AM, Tim Bray wrote: > But U+DEAD is not a character. So a narrow reading would make that illeg= al. > Not that any implementation I=92ve encountered enforces that. -T Several do, including libjansson, Python and Perl. In fact, I suspect that most implementations on platforms that haven't baked in UTF16 as the One True Unicode (javascript, JVM) reject your example. Stephen From sayrer@gmail.com Thu Oct 17 19:26:29 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46C1411E80FA for ; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 19:26:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.97 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.97 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.029, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GGkMGjXaUqUc for ; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 19:26:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qc0-x230.google.com (mail-qc0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD84B21F9CC5 for ; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 19:26:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qc0-f176.google.com with SMTP id s19so775071qcw.35 for ; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 19:26:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=A4OzIEPqLqOUtx7FDTENKMrPhf8rHdAhMT9UVQ4NV4U=; b=m/rhGKxTNffpU+UlUrVz2MpEKbb7qoAq/YaNebYD/zgnnlwkKYG1qTtNIfiCcNVa7w QqfOSqmNv0cxG4yiRC/dsxnXGcYuwkbi3jwBMnzP/5ID9uUWraaI7ur6henJGoqO9v2f AEohB88Xeo6E1QtRs3MxJAqzqtWS3O8LRazBj/ieIcS+bMXkZMNzmEeVGRULrySFetDZ O3C4cn1G96uuxnmLTJ3aDawzYrPyFCb0qFMKju/ABpQJMIywVn8n7bsbB/T5qdP4snEt j/oK688Ec70CneXN9sVnfTX7ct1hcp4n2IdwzTbSc9lh0gYYp3kp97X1g3qmPxhUgmOL yKVg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.224.11.133 with SMTP id t5mr1483211qat.34.1382063177964; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 19:26:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.224.7.9 with HTTP; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 19:26:17 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 19:26:17 -0700 Message-ID: From: R S To: Stephen Dolan Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2b0acc7a13f04e8faa8e4 Cc: Tim Bray , "json@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Json] Naked surrogates already banned? X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 02:26:29 -0000 --001a11c2b0acc7a13f04e8faa8e4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable $ python Python 2.7.4 (default, Oct 6 2013, 14:58:34) [GCC 4.2.1 (Apple Inc. build 5666) (dot 3)] on darwin Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information. >>> import json >>> json.loads('{"a": "\uDEAD"}') {u'a': u'\udead'} >>> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 6:59 PM, Stephen Dolan wrote: > On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 2:36 AM, Tim Bray wrote: > > But U+DEAD is not a character. So a narrow reading would make that > illegal. > > Not that any implementation I=92ve encountered enforces that. -T > > Several do, including libjansson, Python and Perl. In fact, I suspect > that most implementations on platforms that haven't baked in UTF16 as > the One True Unicode (javascript, JVM) reject your example. > > Stephen > _______________________________________________ > json mailing list > json@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json > --001a11c2b0acc7a13f04e8faa8e4 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
$ python
Python 2.7.4 (default, Oct =A06 20= 13, 14:58:34)=A0
[GCC 4.2.1 (Apple Inc. build 5666) (dot 3)] on d= arwin
Type "help", "copyright", "credits= " or "license" for more information.
>>> import json
>>> json.loads('{"= ;a": "\uDEAD"}')
{u'a': u'\udead&#= 39;}
>>>=A0

On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 6:59 PM, Stephen Dolan <= span dir=3D"ltr"><stephen.dolan@cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 2:36 AM, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> wrote:
> But U+DEAD is not a character. =A0So a narrow reading would make that = illegal.
> Not that any implementation I=92ve encountered enforces that. -T

Several do, including libjansson, Python and Perl. In fact, I suspect=
that most implementations on platforms that haven't baked in UTF16 as the One True Unicode (javascript, JVM) reject your example.

Stephen
_______________________________________________
json mailing list
json@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json

--001a11c2b0acc7a13f04e8faa8e4-- From sayrer@gmail.com Thu Oct 17 19:30:17 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71D8011E813B for ; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 19:30:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.272 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.272 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.327, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0jQmuZbcR1PB for ; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 19:30:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qc0-x236.google.com (mail-qc0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F76C11E8135 for ; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 19:30:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qc0-f182.google.com with SMTP id n7so478453qcx.27 for ; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 19:30:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=X0ihz7f5P8HxV2IdvXXYn+EMtpuwCcILE8TcsXqCGPs=; b=wJ3O/zyxIvLhVGRoI3nNoJTJWa21avCGbfq7/dLc2/q338JFOMpEw/3Td/VYoQZuc6 UeSG/m98+/MD6qEVuio/0nA3SkfQta4td1jm3UEXbAwCTJaFp/T7sHWKMPzBRRBXW5Fp 8I8mToInTMEtvqIo/eGwWIkr2L9W0eeQtQbdHIES2QAISijHxLN+opypacKRcndyJkOH aELKySfOJh4eTbQEX5nIk+GyyXIdawW97XWKEehbqpt83ZGDwkEe6SAq5PaqdwxORFAH 17vWNNwk6jXH2iWyQ0O6fxKIZm7EKK514MyeTNQlHHmlVALSIcOnSjdiOSsYYOM3/+v0 5a9g== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.224.79.71 with SMTP id o7mr1485133qak.36.1382063407639; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 19:30:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.224.7.9 with HTTP; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 19:30:07 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20131016172831.GC9701@mercury.ccil.org> References: <29850F92-23F1-4859-BB5A-BB5F1F20DD38@vpnc.org> <20131016172831.GC9701@mercury.ccil.org> Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 19:30:07 -0700 Message-ID: From: R S To: John Cowan Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bf0f31e784c0404e8fab619 Cc: Paul Hoffman , JSON WG Subject: Re: [Json] Possible next work for the WG X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 02:30:17 -0000 --047d7bf0f31e784c0404e8fab619 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 There's already an RFC for that. - Rob On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 10:28 AM, John Cowan wrote: > Paul Hoffman scripsit: > > > Greetings again. While our AD ponders the 4627bis document (probably on > > its way to IETF Last Call), the Working Group can start to think about > > what it wants to do next, if anything. The chairs have heard of at least > > four topics that the WG might or might not want to add to its charter: > > application/json fragment identifiers should be added to this list. > There seems to be a fairly mature proposal along the lines of the XPointer > "element" scheme. Some people don't like it because you can't tell by > examining a fragment id what type of JSON value it references. By the > same token, however, you can't tell by examining a URI pointing to a > JSON document what JSON type it references either. > > -- > John Cowan cowan@ccil.org http://ccil.org/~cowan > The whole of Gaul is quartered into three halves. > --Julius Caesar > _______________________________________________ > json mailing list > json@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json > --047d7bf0f31e784c0404e8fab619 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
There's already an RFC for that. <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6901>
- Rob


On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 10:28 AM, John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org= > wrote:
Paul Hoffman scripsit:

> Greetings again. While our AD ponders the 4627bis document (probably o= n
> its way to IETF Last Call), the Working Group can start to think about=
> what it wants to do next, if anything. The chairs have heard of at lea= st
> four topics that the WG might or might not want to add to its charter:=

application/json fragment identifiers should be added to this list. There seems to be a fairly mature proposal along the lines of the XPointer<= br> "element" scheme. =A0Some people don't like it because you ca= n't tell by
examining a fragment id what type of JSON value it references. =A0By the same token, however, you can't tell by examining a URI pointing to a JSON document what JSON type it references either.

--
John Cowan =A0 =A0cowan@ccil.org =A0 = =A0http://ccil.org/~co= wan
The whole of Gaul is quartered into three halves.
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 --Julius Caesar
_____________________= __________________________
json mailing list
json@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json

--047d7bf0f31e784c0404e8fab619-- From cabo@tzi.org Thu Oct 17 23:39:54 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DC4521F9F3A for ; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 23:39:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -107.173 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-107.173 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.076, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rqtxY6PzCrfF for ; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 23:39:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8E7621F9E3B for ; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 23:39:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r9I6dhZM012120; Fri, 18 Oct 2013 08:39:43 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.217.105] (p54892BCF.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.137.43.207]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A36EBE2F; Fri, 18 Oct 2013 08:39:43 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 08:39:42 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: To: Tim Bray X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) Cc: "json@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Json] Naked surrogates already banned? X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 06:39:54 -0000 On Oct 18, 2013, at 03:36, Tim Bray wrote: > It says Any character may be escaped. If the character is in the Basic = Multilingual Plane (U+0000 through U+FFFF), then it may be represented = as a six-character sequence: a reverse solidus, followed by the = lowercase letter u,... etc It already says in section 1: =20 A string is a sequence of zero or more Unicode characters [UNICODE]. I think we had that discussion already. Count me on the side of the people who don't think UTF-16 artifacts are, = or have ever been, a part of JSON. ECMA-404 is on the side of "any Unicode code point", but that is just = one of the extensions 404 makes over JSON. Now there is a problem that the definition in 4627 ties JSON to a = specific version of Unicode. (The reference is nicely confusing in which version is meant, but that = is an artifact of the way Unicode versions are documented.) I think a robust interpretation of the intent here will add all code = points that are available to be characters in future versions of = Unicode. That is a change the WG SHOULD make, the predictable noise from the = surrogate faction notwithstanding. Gr=FC=DFe, Carsten From mamille2@cisco.com Wed Oct 23 11:09:20 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A141211E82D2 for ; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 11:09:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.524 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.524 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id k4cZEOJWWaQh for ; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 11:09:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07A4811E8346 for ; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 11:09:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=7308; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1382551755; x=1383761355; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=xN5vthgKyDW2CYd2xN7IpM/DYGosVdBNw/MSPi8VW6s=; b=kU1+qgR5Jg9r1C79beHaOzw210S3QVvPn8J5ZNKEGH+iAiPp1cxKS2K3 q/6QRW3vRJL62jqj2peJ8OjoGTvz7d5n5w0TUV3DWAMaHxNrADUuVnw7/ RGoOcHO5Pn3JDXWXR4gEtO6qNXUrSz4pAtsaCrEilvpoaDvXzeDvFg2iW 0=; X-Files: smime.p7s : 4136 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgoFAKEPaFKtJV2c/2dsb2JhbABZgwc4VL5TgS4WdIInAQSBCwEqJjAnBBsGh3gNmTahW48dg1eBCwOQLYEwh1uQWIMkgio X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,555,1378857600"; d="p7s'?scan'208";a="275776013" Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 23 Oct 2013 18:09:14 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x10.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x10.cisco.com [173.37.183.84]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r9NI9E0Q012928 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 18:09:14 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x11.cisco.com ([169.254.6.88]) by xhc-rcd-x10.cisco.com ([173.37.183.84]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 13:09:13 -0500 From: "Matt Miller (mamille2)" To: JSON WG Thread-Topic: Preliminary Agenda for IETF 88 Thread-Index: AQHO0Br6oZLbBix9v0mgkrXytndv2A== Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 18:09:12 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [64.101.72.48] Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_5D06445A-1A4D-4B66-9D5D-F4E1F43BF7AE"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [Json] Preliminary Agenda for IETF 88 X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 18:09:20 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_5D06445A-1A4D-4B66-9D5D-F4E1F43BF7AE Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Here is a preliminary agenda for our face-to-face meeting, which will be = posted to the datatracker presently. Comments and corrections are = welcome. Thanks! -- Paul Hoffman and Matt Miller -----BEGIN AGENDA----- JSON WG - IETF 88 Agenda =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Tuesday, 5 November 2013, 13:00 - 14:00 PST (21:00 - 22:00 UTC) Plaza A 1. Administrivia and Agenda Bashing - 5 min (Chairs) 2. WG Status - 10 min (Chairs) < http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-06 > - Status of Draft - Interactions with other SDOs 3. I-JSON - 10 min (Tim Bray) < http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bray-i-json-00 > 4. Documenting JSON in Protocols - 10 min (Barry Leiba) 5. JSON Schema Requirements - 10 min (Paul Hoffman) 6. Other Requests for Items - 5 min (Chairs) 7. Questions to the Working Group - 10 min (Chairs, AD) -----END AGENDA----- --Apple-Mail=_5D06445A-1A4D-4B66-9D5D-F4E1F43BF7AE Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIMezCCBjQw ggQcoAMCAQICAR4wDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwfTELMAkGA1UEBhMCSUwxFjAUBgNVBAoTDVN0YXJ0 Q29tIEx0ZC4xKzApBgNVBAsTIlNlY3VyZSBEaWdpdGFsIENlcnRpZmljYXRlIFNpZ25pbmcxKTAn BgNVBAMTIFN0YXJ0Q29tIENlcnRpZmljYXRpb24gQXV0aG9yaXR5MB4XDTA3MTAyNDIxMDE1NVoX DTE3MTAyNDIxMDE1NVowgYwxCzAJBgNVBAYTAklMMRYwFAYDVQQKEw1TdGFydENvbSBMdGQuMSsw KQYDVQQLEyJTZWN1cmUgRGlnaXRhbCBDZXJ0aWZpY2F0ZSBTaWduaW5nMTgwNgYDVQQDEy9TdGFy dENvbSBDbGFzcyAxIFByaW1hcnkgSW50ZXJtZWRpYXRlIENsaWVudCBDQTCCASIwDQYJKoZIhvcN AQEBBQADggEPADCCAQoCggEBAMcJg8zOLdgasSmkLhOrlr6KMoOMpohBllVHrdRvEg/q6r8jR+EK 75xCGhR8ToREoqe7zM9/UnC6TS2y9UKTpT1v7RSMzR0t6ndl0TWBuUr/UXBhPk+Kmy7bI4yW4urC +y7P3/1/X7U8ocb8VpH/Clt+4iq7nirMcNh6qJR+xjOhV+VHzQMALuGYn5KZmc1NbJQYclsGkDxD z2UbFqE2+6vIZoL+jb9x4Pa5gNf1TwSDkOkikZB1xtB4ZqtXThaABSONdfmv/Z1pua3FYxnCFmdr /+N2JLKutIxMYqQOJebr/f/h5t95m4JgrM3Y/w7YX9d7YAL9jvN4SydHsU6n65cCAwEAAaOCAa0w ggGpMA8GA1UdEwEB/wQFMAMBAf8wDgYDVR0PAQH/BAQDAgEGMB0GA1UdDgQWBBRTcu2SnODaywFc fH6WNU7y1LhRgjAfBgNVHSMEGDAWgBROC+8apEBbpRdphzDKNGhD0EGu8jBmBggrBgEFBQcBAQRa MFgwJwYIKwYBBQUHMAGGG2h0dHA6Ly9vY3NwLnN0YXJ0c3NsLmNvbS9jYTAtBggrBgEFBQcwAoYh aHR0cDovL3d3dy5zdGFydHNzbC5jb20vc2ZzY2EuY3J0MFsGA1UdHwRUMFIwJ6AloCOGIWh0dHA6 Ly93d3cuc3RhcnRzc2wuY29tL3Nmc2NhLmNybDAnoCWgI4YhaHR0cDovL2NybC5zdGFydHNzbC5j b20vc2ZzY2EuY3JsMIGABgNVHSAEeTB3MHUGCysGAQQBgbU3AQIBMGYwLgYIKwYBBQUHAgEWImh0 dHA6Ly93d3cuc3RhcnRzc2wuY29tL3BvbGljeS5wZGYwNAYIKwYBBQUHAgEWKGh0dHA6Ly93d3cu c3RhcnRzc2wuY29tL2ludGVybWVkaWF0ZS5wZGYwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQADggIBAAqDCH14qywG XLhjjF6uHLkjd02hcdh9hrw+VUsv+q1eeQWB21jWj3kJ96AUlPCoEGZ/ynJNScWy6QMVQjbbMXlt UfO4n4bGGdKo3awPWp61tjAFgraLJgDk+DsSvUD6EowjMTNx25GQgyYJ5RPIzKKR9tQW8gGK+2+R HxkUCTbYFnL6kl8Ch507rUdPPipJ9CgJFws3kDS3gOS5WFMxcjO5DwKfKSETEPrHh7p5shuuNktv sv6hxHTLhiMKX893gxdT3XLS9OKmCv87vkINQcNEcIIoFWbP9HORz9v3vQwR4e3ksLc2JZOAFK+s sS5XMEoznzpihEP0PLc4dCBYjbvSD7kxgDwZ+Aj8Q9PkbvE9sIPP7ON0fz095HdThKjiVJe6vofq +n6b1NBc8XdrQvBmunwxD5nvtTW4vtN6VY7mUCmxsCieuoBJ9OlqmsVWQvifIYf40dJPZkk9YgGT zWLpXDSfLSplbY2LL9C9U0ptvjcDjefLTvqSFc7tw1sEhF0n/qpA2r0GpvkLRDmcSwVyPvmjFBGq Up/pNy8ZuPGQmHwFi2/14+xeSUDG2bwnsYJQG2EdJCB6luQ57GEnTA/yKZSTKI8dDQa8Sd3zfXb1 9mOgSF0bBdXbuKhEpuP9wirslFe6fQ1t5j5R0xi72MZ8ikMu1RQZKCyDbMwazlHiMIIGPzCCBSeg AwIBAgIDBoRIMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAMIGMMQswCQYDVQQGEwJJTDEWMBQGA1UEChMNU3RhcnRD b20gTHRkLjErMCkGA1UECxMiU2VjdXJlIERpZ2l0YWwgQ2VydGlmaWNhdGUgU2lnbmluZzE4MDYG A1UEAxMvU3RhcnRDb20gQ2xhc3MgMSBQcmltYXJ5IEludGVybWVkaWF0ZSBDbGllbnQgQ0EwHhcN MTMwNDMwMjE1NDQyWhcNMTQwNTAyMDUzOTA0WjBbMRkwFwYDVQQNExBiN2F6NndOY0t0R3JtMEpF MRswGQYDVQQDDBJtYW1pbGxlMkBjaXNjby5jb20xITAfBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWEm1hbWlsbGUyQGNp c2NvLmNvbTCCASIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADggEPADCCAQoCggEBAJbKBMsG+9UFTx9uq/bhhXgu vJvO8z7cwKaqqwZhVf5z/kHFyCNijtmTOE+YXjA8mWR4aoBwB5SvGypI/cJUofJ+AlBTC4g+RMx/ K0Ab4/jQqTQz9CDzMOB+Wm+rt8ZJ7A8ZzOJmNDAsf/VvB8l2A1SQz1UsAixgH16NTr8SlblAXEKk 4hwpCudUiNjjQokqJ0H686UBKVorcZSgXaza8XMqGtJF/8mNhR9GQYi7Xht1ky+9LFOrto2daZto KJRwMeVusVdHUeKEQSu7jztw8HchH3KEb7Q+r5X+hhDZoddfKE8d5eyPuhiZdrzv7OlNZ0fSLdx7 3AE3nx9/R5YlXucCAwEAAaOCAtgwggLUMAkGA1UdEwQCMAAwCwYDVR0PBAQDAgSwMB0GA1UdJQQW MBQGCCsGAQUFBwMCBggrBgEFBQcDBDAdBgNVHQ4EFgQUxGd+/qrdVudHrIKkw5xOMY7eaLUwHwYD VR0jBBgwFoAUU3Ltkpzg2ssBXHx+ljVO8tS4UYIwHQYDVR0RBBYwFIESbWFtaWxsZTJAY2lzY28u Y29tMIIBTAYDVR0gBIIBQzCCAT8wggE7BgsrBgEEAYG1NwECAzCCASowLgYIKwYBBQUHAgEWImh0 dHA6Ly93d3cuc3RhcnRzc2wuY29tL3BvbGljeS5wZGYwgfcGCCsGAQUFBwICMIHqMCcWIFN0YXJ0 Q29tIENlcnRpZmljYXRpb24gQXV0aG9yaXR5MAMCAQEagb5UaGlzIGNlcnRpZmljYXRlIHdhcyBp c3N1ZWQgYWNjb3JkaW5nIHRvIHRoZSBDbGFzcyAxIFZhbGlkYXRpb24gcmVxdWlyZW1lbnRzIG9m IHRoZSBTdGFydENvbSBDQSBwb2xpY3ksIHJlbGlhbmNlIG9ubHkgZm9yIHRoZSBpbnRlbmRlZCBw dXJwb3NlIGluIGNvbXBsaWFuY2Ugb2YgdGhlIHJlbHlpbmcgcGFydHkgb2JsaWdhdGlvbnMuMDYG A1UdHwQvMC0wK6ApoCeGJWh0dHA6Ly9jcmwuc3RhcnRzc2wuY29tL2NydHUxLWNybC5jcmwwgY4G CCsGAQUFBwEBBIGBMH8wOQYIKwYBBQUHMAGGLWh0dHA6Ly9vY3NwLnN0YXJ0c3NsLmNvbS9zdWIv Y2xhc3MxL2NsaWVudC9jYTBCBggrBgEFBQcwAoY2aHR0cDovL2FpYS5zdGFydHNzbC5jb20vY2Vy dHMvc3ViLmNsYXNzMS5jbGllbnQuY2EuY3J0MCMGA1UdEgQcMBqGGGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuc3RhcnRz c2wuY29tLzANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFAAOCAQEAlDhXbGEI7lbqUcu5r2JHZaMsbRZda/99ZqODzWGX 0llou9jGccsAWDPPwRRe2+ROpXfH4cuJZElTcLDeZSp/qpXKhjYieFSX8+Ml9sKEj5UOSqQLyoLk PtrIJV12Jk3nuG2Jc0UeEnGwK/aqtzy7+bfEVI0ziyVM2gChHh0RH74KyiwYWknbOTRIkZcz/ulE DVFQp63uj6wfmDNvAUHBAdhKVqA1S/rfP1KcDZpf1NfvwXJibiqTRA6K1EOxTJOP41n/XdvHqHXL RWL2xrOUI9/URANr/ok3OrsuZEMFnAAGefS1bWS/hFtUGVkHGiKEBbyDW7da2ULXbuC7umrQnzGC A28wggNrAgEBMIGUMIGMMQswCQYDVQQGEwJJTDEWMBQGA1UEChMNU3RhcnRDb20gTHRkLjErMCkG A1UECxMiU2VjdXJlIERpZ2l0YWwgQ2VydGlmaWNhdGUgU2lnbmluZzE4MDYGA1UEAxMvU3RhcnRD b20gQ2xhc3MgMSBQcmltYXJ5IEludGVybWVkaWF0ZSBDbGllbnQgQ0ECAwaESDAJBgUrDgMCGgUA oIIBrzAYBgkqhkiG9w0BCQMxCwYJKoZIhvcNAQcBMBwGCSqGSIb3DQEJBTEPFw0xMzEwMjMxODA5 MTNaMCMGCSqGSIb3DQEJBDEWBBQ3H6Ip8vkTIwZpufrxe3EZ8eCEejCBpQYJKwYBBAGCNxAEMYGX MIGUMIGMMQswCQYDVQQGEwJJTDEWMBQGA1UEChMNU3RhcnRDb20gTHRkLjErMCkGA1UECxMiU2Vj dXJlIERpZ2l0YWwgQ2VydGlmaWNhdGUgU2lnbmluZzE4MDYGA1UEAxMvU3RhcnRDb20gQ2xhc3Mg MSBQcmltYXJ5IEludGVybWVkaWF0ZSBDbGllbnQgQ0ECAwaESDCBpwYLKoZIhvcNAQkQAgsxgZeg gZQwgYwxCzAJBgNVBAYTAklMMRYwFAYDVQQKEw1TdGFydENvbSBMdGQuMSswKQYDVQQLEyJTZWN1 cmUgRGlnaXRhbCBDZXJ0aWZpY2F0ZSBTaWduaW5nMTgwNgYDVQQDEy9TdGFydENvbSBDbGFzcyAx IFByaW1hcnkgSW50ZXJtZWRpYXRlIENsaWVudCBDQQIDBoRIMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUABIIBAEmT gIF7wxUnkS+Kfr1pSxkw5QfE9Po3g/oxRjaHSXAxCsofwcauXDE1p4CViDq2uuniukIHf2HQ7DPO qkU8r2WSpP2p9cBMMT3eELKBsiV0v2S6OvreawAy5YMKYzWpzGlR1cWnXMlOwJuhL1HQGELC4Iba uUtcgah8fXqZludPKjBsp97jBWGnP5ZzTYDaXj8IVBO9dx8Xt6I3pZ7Hd5Ev9C5KV/qPH9UJnpxR /VB4oQfBLIFvmzCmn7lzeExQJcdSAlfbWPpiuReacZoLvqd6pcf0E8SZn3Z58yeGZGCKKPVERnLv fNvqqxO/7+q+t4XVoyW6hU8CjAE5MUoIaPsAAAAAAAA= --Apple-Mail=_5D06445A-1A4D-4B66-9D5D-F4E1F43BF7AE-- From tbray@textuality.com Fri Oct 25 15:20:10 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCC4E11E81DA for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 15:20:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.022, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DWqi0fI+Y-cF for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 15:20:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ve0-f182.google.com (mail-ve0-f182.google.com [209.85.128.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F389621F9FAE for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 15:20:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ve0-f182.google.com with SMTP id c14so1735284vea.41 for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 15:20:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=4HJ6TQHXKs5YbOFuBErHJsW4wIh4vCn9jVGsDMf8wVI=; b=G3zgNrrRWo7AD5HTzaZ9ELy8MDzE6wpRm+qMChFBFiikIhuYOpNwlwcw6lEneJKeGL MjQMy85bncZBfnmV6YyfHEGyksxlIJ168XPiiU1o7QVMBLcx89cdxceUobfoOEyb0yRY 8yanPs2Skz3PbZyJ3TbSZaFdiuotC11eDxn/LJmIvZ9QPxGtbetM/UfUZLRjuNRLqqbe t3JERAtu/lLz2ux5mSkpwwQBYf1fxhAF9UmMBahl8A5uPT96QZA1YdiaDHVP1fCWtBvu jhmTI71KG8dYXIZOR/Xk+tRmURytKCQZlp/WwZDLYkYFRGPgxAkSwv3w/2JqWlnSTH1j 3pFg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlYdxm4E3crUPtmkLLwd57tb+RHInli9Ra0nitsQ6TRxlfw3quCHrfppc6tCNTAG8bwi4yO MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.221.18.70 with SMTP id qf6mr62677vcb.37.1382739602039; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 15:20:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.110.134 with HTTP; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 15:20:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [96.49.81.176] Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 15:20:01 -0700 Message-ID: From: Tim Bray To: "json@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11333c22cbfaea04e998268a Subject: [Json] Revised I-JSON X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 22:20:10 -0000 --001a11333c22cbfaea04e998268a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I revised the I-JSON draft, too late for the Vancouver cutoff. I tried to make it line up as exactly as possible with the 4627bis draft, and say little more than =E2=80=9Call of those interop problems called out = in 4627 draft, you MUST NOT do those things.=E2=80=9D HTML at https://www.tbray.org/tmp/draft-bray-i-json-01.html --001a11333c22cbfaea04e998268a Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I revised the I-JSON draft, too late for the Vancouver cut= off. =C2=A0

I tried to make it line up as exactly as pos= sible with the 4627bis draft, and say little more than =E2=80=9Call of thos= e interop problems called out in 4627 draft, you MUST NOT do those things.= =E2=80=9D

--001a11333c22cbfaea04e998268a-- From James.H.Manger@team.telstra.com Wed Oct 30 21:32:44 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47FC821F9FF6 for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 21:32:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.087 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.087 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.501, BAYES_05=-1.11, HELO_EQ_AU=0.377, HOST_EQ_AU=0.327, RELAY_IS_203=0.994] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hea30BJHByH7 for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 21:32:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ipxbvo.tcif.telstra.com.au (ipxbvo.tcif.telstra.com.au [203.35.135.204]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A08711E8246 for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 21:32:34 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,606,1378821600"; d="scan'208";a="170313967" Received: from unknown (HELO ipcavi.tcif.telstra.com.au) ([10.97.217.200]) by ipobvi.tcif.telstra.com.au with ESMTP; 31 Oct 2013 15:32:32 +1100 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,7244"; a="228265799" Received: from wsmsg3754.srv.dir.telstra.com ([172.49.40.198]) by ipcavi.tcif.telstra.com.au with ESMTP; 31 Oct 2013 15:32:17 +1100 Received: from WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com ([172.49.40.159]) by WSMSG3754.srv.dir.telstra.com ([172.49.40.198]) with mapi; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 15:32:16 +1100 From: "Manger, James H" To: Tim Bray , "json@ietf.org" Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 15:32:15 +1100 Thread-Topic: [Json] Revised I-JSON Thread-Index: Ac7R0GHMbpDbAeuSTIiIbEQ0orstigEGguvA Message-ID: <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E11535B16508@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US, en-AU Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US, en-AU Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Json] Revised I-JSON X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 04:32:44 -0000 PiBJIHJldmlzZWQgdGhlIEktSlNPTiBkcmFmdCwgdG9vIGxhdGUgZm9yIHRoZSBWYW5jb3V2ZXIg Y3V0b2ZmLg0KPiANCj4gSSB0cmllZCB0byBtYWtlIGl0IGxpbmUgdXAgYXMgZXhhY3RseSBhcyBw b3NzaWJsZSB3aXRoIHRoZSA0NjI3YmlzDQo+IGRyYWZ0LCBhbmQgc2F5IGxpdHRsZSBtb3JlIHRo YW4g4oCcYWxsIG9mIHRob3NlIGludGVyb3AgcHJvYmxlbXMgY2FsbGVkDQo+IG91dCBpbiA0NjI3 IGRyYWZ0LCB5b3UgTVVTVCBOT1QgZG8gdGhvc2UgdGhpbmdzLuKAnQ0KPiANCj4gSFRNTCBhdMKg aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cudGJyYXkub3JnL3RtcC9kcmFmdC1icmF5LWktanNvbi0wMS5odG1sDQoNCg0K Q29tbWVudHMgb24gSS1KU09OOg0KDQpTZWN0aW9uIDIuMS4gU2VsZi1pZGVudGlmaWNhdGlvbg0K DQogICJNVVNUIGJlIHRoZSBmaXJzdCBtZW1iZXIgb2YgdGhlIG9iamVjdCINCg0KVGhlIHNwZWMg Y2Fubm90IHNheSBhICJ1cm46aWV0ZjppLWpzb24iIG1lbWJlciBtdXN0IGJlIGZpcnN0LiBUaGlz IGJyZWFrcyB0aGUgd2hvbGUgaWRlYSB0aGF0IG9yZGVyIG9mIG1lbWJlcnMgZG9lc24ndCBtYXR0 ZXIuIEl0IG1ha2VzIGl0IGF3a3dhcmQgdG8gZ2VuZXJhdGUgSS1KU09OIGJlY2F1c2UgbWFueSBu YXRpdmUgcHJvZ3JhbW1pbmctbGFuZ3VhZ2Ugc3RydWN0dXJlcyBmb3Igb2JqZWN0cyAoc3VjaCBh cyBtYXBzKSBkb24ndCBndWFyYW50ZWUgdGhlIG9yZGVyIGZvciBlbnVtZXJhdGluZyBtZW1iZXJz Lg0KDQoNCkRlZmluaW5nIGEgInVybjppZXRmOmktanNvbiIgbWVtYmVyIHdob3NlIHZhbHVlIGlz IGFuIG9iamVjdCwgYnV0IG5vdCBkZWZpbmluZyBhbnkgbWVtYmVycyBmb3IgdGhhdCBvYmplY3Qg ZmVlbHMgYSBiaXQgc3RyYW5nZS4NCg0KDQogICJTb2Z0d2FyZSB3aGljaCBpcyBwcm9jZXNzaW5n IGFuIEktSlNPTiBtZXNzYWdlIGFuZCBlbmNvdW50ZXJzDQogICBhbiBJLUpTT04gcHJvZmlsZSBj b250YWluaW5nIG1lbWJlcnMgaXQgZG9lcyBub3QgdW5kZXJzdGFuZA0KICAgTVVTVCBpZ25vcmUg dGhvc2UgY29udGVudHMiDQoNCkkgYXNzdW1lICJNVVNUIGlnbm9yZSB0aG9zZSBjb250ZW50cyIg bWVhbnMgIk1VU1QgaWdub3JlIHRob3NlIG1lbWJlcnMiLiBJIGFzc3VtZSBpdCBpcyBzYXlpbmcg dGhlICJ1cm46aWV0ZjppLWpzb24iIHZhbHVlIGhhcyBhIG11c3QtaWdub3JlIHBvbGljeTsgbm90 IHRoYXQgdGhlIHRvcC1sZXZlbCBJLUpTT04gb2JqZWN0IGhhcyB0byBoYXZlIGEgbXVzdC1pZ25v cmUgcG9saWN5Lg0KDQoNCkFuIEktSlNPTiBtZXNzYWdlIE1BWSBpbmNsdWRlICJ1cm46aWV0Zjpp LWpzb24iIGFuZCBpdHMgbWVkaWEgdHlwZSBNQVkgaW5jbHVkZSBwcm9maWxlPWktanNvbi4gQXJl IHRoZXNlIGluZGVwZW5kZW50PyBPciBhcmUgeW91IHN1cHBvc2VkIGhhdmUgYSAidXJuOmlldGY6 aS1qc29uIiBtZW1iZXIgd2hlbiBpbmNsdWRpbmcgdGhlIHByb2ZpbGUgcGFyYW1ldGVyPw0KDQoN ClNlY3Rpb24gMi4yLiBFbmNvZGluZyBhbmQgQ2hhcmFjdGVycw0KDQogICJTSE9VTEQgTk9UIGlu Y2x1ZGUgY29kZSBwb2ludHMgd2hpY2ggaWRlbnRpZnkNCiAgIENvbnRyb2wgY2hhcmFjdGVycyAo VW5pY29kZSBzZWN0aW9uIDIuNCkiDQoNCkkgaG9wZSBuZXdsaW5lIFUrMDAwQSBpcyBhY2NlcHRh YmxlIGluIEktSlNPTiwgYXQgbGVhc3QgYXMgIlxuIi4gTmV3bGluZSBpcyBhIGNvbnRyb2wgY2hh cmFjdGVyIHNvIGl0IGNsYXNoZXMgd2l0aCB0aGlzIHNwZWMgc2VudGVuY2UuIFNpbWlsYXJseSB3 aXRoIHRhYjsgcHJlc3VtYWJseSBjYXJyaWFnZSByZXR1cm47IHByb2JhYmx5IGZvcm1mZWVkLg0K DQotLQ0KSmFtZXMgTWFuZ2VyDQo= From presnick@qti.qualcomm.com Thu Oct 31 09:29:16 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA3B121F9FFF for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 09:29:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.609 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.609 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.010, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Bp18YL5+DKyy for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 09:29:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wolverine02.qualcomm.com (wolverine02.qualcomm.com [199.106.114.251]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC05221F9F80 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 09:29:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qti.qualcomm.com; i=@qti.qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1383236950; x=1414772950; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject: content-transfer-encoding; bh=I6QluuQxPZ7+oF23vXbm7l9e9A1o9/BtpvqgQfro/Dk=; b=daehPMuhkV7fFeNYyz/A+xXXRI+IBbHQoIbVF8Aeq9gdtAUj+9QYjz5V bhwL1woTDBLG44K7bmc2duzodIJuudHu6u2pel6dbHXAxEP0XvAY4ImUU oiMtqKTI1p2eW66d0ew51HlXTOnAkzCV2NPlyfwVUZfi1aiGXokVcNcqJ M=; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,7244"; a="84217036" Received: from ironmsg03-l.qualcomm.com ([172.30.48.18]) by wolverine02.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 31 Oct 2013 09:29:10 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,7244"; a="566099159" Received: from nasanexhc13.na.qualcomm.com ([172.30.48.20]) by Ironmsg03-L.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 31 Oct 2013 09:29:10 -0700 Received: from nasanexhc05.na.qualcomm.com (172.30.48.2) by nasanexhc13.na.qualcomm.com (172.30.48.20) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 09:29:09 -0700 Received: from presnick-mac.local (172.30.48.1) by qcmail1.qualcomm.com (172.30.48.2) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 09:28:58 -0700 Message-ID: <52728545.6080009@qti.qualcomm.com> Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 11:28:53 -0500 From: Pete Resnick User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100630 Eudora/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "json@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [172.30.48.1] Subject: [Json] AD Review of draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-06 X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 16:29:17 -0000 Summary: I am fine issuing the last call on this document. Below are a few minor things. Fix them if you agree with them. Don't if you don't. I'll pull the trigger on the Last Call when the chairs say, "Go!" Abstract: Suggest adding the first sentence of 1.2 and/or some piece of 1.3 to the end. Section 1 and 2: Neither "serialization" nor "serialized" is defined. Might be useful. Section 1.1: I am amused by the fact that the uses of MUST/SHOULD/MAY in this document (the original uses) all appear to be conformance uses, whereas all of the new interoperability language avoids MUST/SHOULD/MAY, even though 2119 says that it should be used for the latter, rather than the former. I will hold my nose. Section 15.1: Unicode reference still says version 4. Good work folks. pr -- Pete Resnick Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478 From tbray@textuality.com Thu Oct 31 09:59:28 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA46C21E80FA for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 09:59:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.081 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.081 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.771, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_HTML_USL_OBFU=1.666] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XR4FZchWxP2P for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 09:59:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vc0-f182.google.com (mail-vc0-f182.google.com [209.85.220.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DD3011E8231 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 09:59:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vc0-f182.google.com with SMTP id if17so2122023vcb.41 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 09:59:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=rm8yzexlAPHr18RjsvQR3ILE72GU4tsgKlxSBBv6K2A=; b=GOTPoLJqLCPjEpkdg2+OF93SqFHdHh7t8Zv+GVGOLgMjRh6Ig12H8uBvwV3JMZZ2V6 dAkkui4P64IxOCp54iyH2SLlpG2L6WSvA6LkyVgwXQ5Mqx37i5RE9uyDSoOLLhIheymS e2sfeH1+pIrKiyYGAyRLEh3owtUWDk+FV/JhmcHhqL+RsuyeExBk5xYAw3q0eAzdPn4c /aU2Amb/u5QiepNj74KdVhrxUP9vrsPNQO6ttfaqx2pdSCPnXEHpJLN6jqW3y6mrDd53 L0OEk7U9fbpmybJrer1V4t6xCjcmCSP+rw8ydvrY2LEKwtMq5I2J8d+DBiiD4un/G6t4 2Y8w== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk7deWSY8Gs5taihLks8s+gEUPqFShsaZ0NNuSs4pDO83Tsx3rQZWet3+3iXzWQTDExGzO8 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.58.19.195 with SMTP id h3mr149427vee.48.1383238763707; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 09:59:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.110.134 with HTTP; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 09:59:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [24.84.235.32] In-Reply-To: <52728545.6080009@qti.qualcomm.com> References: <52728545.6080009@qti.qualcomm.com> Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 09:59:23 -0700 Message-ID: From: Tim Bray To: Pete Resnick Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b86c81e268b1e04ea0c5f9f Cc: "json@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Json] AD Review of draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-06 X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 16:59:29 -0000 --047d7b86c81e268b1e04ea0c5f9f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks, Pete. On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 9:28 AM, Pete Resnick wr= ote: > Summary: I am fine issuing the last call on this document. Below are a fe= w > minor things. Fix them if you agree with them. Don't if you don't. I'll > pull the trigger on the Last Call when the chairs say, "Go!" > > Abstract: Suggest adding the first sentence of 1.2 and/or some piece of > 1.3 to the end. > To avoid duplication, I suggest adding this to the abstract: =E2=80=9CThis document makes no changes to the definition of JSON; it repa= irs specification errors and offers experience-based interoperability guidance.= =E2=80=9D > Section 1 and 2: Neither "serialization" nor "serialized" is defined. > Might be useful. > It hasn=E2=80=99t harmed interoperability for the last decade or so, let=E2= =80=99s assume the readership is capable of working around this. > Section 1.1: I am amused by the fact that the uses of MUST/SHOULD/MAY in > this document (the original uses) all appear to be conformance uses, > whereas all of the new interoperability language avoids MUST/SHOULD/MAY, > even though 2119 says that it should be used for the latter, rather than > the former. I will hold my nose. > Section 15.1: Unicode reference still says version 4. > Oops, will fix unless anyone objects. > Good work folks. > > pr > > -- > Pete Resnick > > > Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478 > > ______________________________**_________________ > json mailing list > json@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/json > --047d7b86c81e268b1e04ea0c5f9f Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thanks, Pete.

On Thu, Oct 31, 201= 3 at 9:28 AM, Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com> wrote:
Summary: I am fine issuing the last call on this document. Below = are a few minor things. Fix them if you agree with them. Don't if you d= on't. I'll pull the trigger on the Last Call when the chairs say, &= quot;Go!"

Abstract: Suggest adding the first sentence of 1.2 and/or some piece of 1.3= to the end.

To avoid duplication, I su= ggest adding this to the abstract:

=C2=A0=E2=80=9C= This document makes no changes to the definition of JSON; it repairs specif= ication errors and offers experience-based interoperability guidance.=E2=80= =9D
=C2=A0
Section 1 and 2: Neither &q= uot;serialization" nor "serialized" is defined. Might be use= ful.

It hasn=E2=80=99t harmed interoperability = for the last decade or so, let=E2=80=99s assume the readership is capable o= f working around this.
=C2=A0
Section 1.1: =C2=A0I am amused by the fact that the uses of MUST/SHOULD/MAY= in this document (the original uses) all appear to be conformance uses, wh= ereas all of the new interoperability language avoids MUST/SHOULD/MAY, even= though 2119 says that it should be used for the latter, rather than the fo= rmer. I will hold my nose.
=C2=A0
<snicker>=C2=A0

Section 15.1: Unicode reference still says= version 4.
=C2=A0
Oops, will fix unless anyone objects.


Good work folks.

pr

--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478

_______________________________________________
json mailing list
json@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json

--047d7b86c81e268b1e04ea0c5f9f-- From paul.hoffman@vpnc.org Thu Oct 31 10:26:02 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5768B11E8247 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 10:26:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.59 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.59 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.009, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZAAPM79rVBUd for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 10:26:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19BFA11E8231 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 10:25:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.20.30.90] (50-0-66-41.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.0.66.41]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id r9VHPptM041237 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 31 Oct 2013 10:25:53 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: hoffman.proper.com: Host 50-0-66-41.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.0.66.41] claimed to be [10.20.30.90] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1816\)) From: Paul Hoffman In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 10:25:51 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <704C3460-0581-4AA5-B243-2B9B6A1E5918@vpnc.org> References: <52728545.6080009@qti.qualcomm.com> To: Tim Bray X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1816) Cc: "json@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Json] AD Review of draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-06 X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 17:26:02 -0000 On Oct 31, 2013, at 9:59 AM, Tim Bray wrote: > Oops, will fix unless anyone objects. Hold that thought. Let's let the WG have some days to look at these, we = can discuss them at the f2f next week, you can then make the changes, = and then Matt and I ask Pete to send this to IETF LC. --Paul Hoffman= From jhildebr@cisco.com Thu Oct 31 12:22:30 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28AFF11E8195 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 12:22:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L1EbVlVPRhRq for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 12:22:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BBC611E814F for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 12:22:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=351; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1383247340; x=1384456940; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=CxhG59+T/TtuOLX65bstt0zDzIukt2G5ZV3woOW8Kg8=; b=L66roOTou06fGyyrKKeFw7mYl4/8dyTd9R37yypM+fgoKg/BjzHCgQjI Bx30Z2vsz7+lRRsB2fKlv3I5ffkuR6HeUou0oUhlusq2IuIpXabFsyyxC PPoNLKEp8C+OW7rgg8z/eZ9wAPDfCYd9RaG/4LYWhLh11/VfJCsFPhVR9 M=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgoFAHetclKtJXG8/2dsb2JhbABZgwc4VL9qgSgWdIIlAQEBAwE6PxIBCA4UFEIlAgQBDQUIAYd4Bg28Y48eMQeDIIEOA6oTgyaCKg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,611,1378857600"; d="scan'208";a="276180268" Received: from rcdn-core2-1.cisco.com ([173.37.113.188]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP; 31 Oct 2013 19:22:19 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x10.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x10.cisco.com [173.36.12.84]) by rcdn-core2-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r9VJMJIn029539 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 31 Oct 2013 19:22:19 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com ([169.254.15.110]) by xhc-aln-x10.cisco.com ([173.36.12.84]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 14:22:19 -0500 From: "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" To: Tim Bray , Pete Resnick Thread-Topic: [Json] AD Review of draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-06 Thread-Index: AQHO1lZdW1plpw9h00mmm7+CGotNEpoPXD2A///DVwA= Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 19:22:18 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.8.130913 x-originating-ip: [10.129.24.61] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <6584DBA046AAD44AB3936AF3FA1313EF@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "json@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Json] AD Review of draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-06 X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 19:22:30 -0000 On 10/31/13 10:59 AM, "Tim Bray" wrote: >> Section 15.1: Unicode reference still says version 4. > > >=20 >Oops, will fix unless anyone objects. What would you change it to? The versionless reference from here: http://www.unicode.org/versions/index.html#References is one way to go. --=20 Joe Hildebrand From paul.hoffman@vpnc.org Thu Oct 31 12:43:00 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE56E21F9EAE for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 12:43:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.59 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.59 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.009, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CV8JCONG7O8b for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 12:43:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A370F11E823F for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 12:40:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.20.30.90] (50-0-66-41.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.0.66.41]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id r9VJepM6045925 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 12:40:52 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: hoffman.proper.com: Host 50-0-66-41.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.0.66.41] claimed to be [10.20.30.90] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1816\)) From: Paul Hoffman In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 12:40:50 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <1E1010ED-5DD5-4CE4-B79C-8153DBFF9D6F@vpnc.org> References: To: "json@ietf.org" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1816) Subject: [Json] Unicode version to reference X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 19:43:00 -0000 On Oct 31, 2013, at 12:22 PM, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) = wrote: > On 10/31/13 10:59 AM, "Tim Bray" wrote: >=20 >>> Section 15.1: Unicode reference still says version 4. >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> Oops, will fix unless anyone objects. >=20 > What would you change it to? The versionless reference from here: >=20 > http://www.unicode.org/versions/index.html#References >=20 >=20 > is one way to go. In the earlier thread, there were three proposals: a) Leave as-is from RFC 4627 b) Point to the latest published version c) Point to the versionless reference The document to date has left it as (a), and is thus backward-compatible = with RFC 4627. ECMA-404 chose (b). No evidence has been presented that = there are any JSON encoders that refuse to write out characters that are = unallocated in any particular version, nor any parsers that indicate an = error if a JSON text contains such a character. --Paul Hoffman From tbray@textuality.com Thu Oct 31 12:49:44 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DF4B21F9F40 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 12:49:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.997 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.021, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZLBe06IVqIpR for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 12:49:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vc0-f182.google.com (mail-vc0-f182.google.com [209.85.220.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E64611E8160 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 12:49:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vc0-f182.google.com with SMTP id if17so2347403vcb.27 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 12:49:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=NX9WuNgSJsZsqE6G1n8ajxU+lZzN+tGm4oex9zHPnag=; b=aDf3kjPZf3VlquK7JJxGfGX6wTl7LG6WaV3FieMmxI5Pxdz/VMKUEnHAHJeIkMGkny dsIdzEi1GB/OGj6mVSFhZSIIA+6DXYaNbZ/rDiRl2SkaoYwpgK4MkEAv41oX01OwbuGq wK1Rm6oN3uyJfV3moKfjG5vp0mbadPPx+sn1iEIXsBfgdpaIJ70AANOEO2NGb8lqWvrW ZreFVealpJVbAlnoakzwZ9VFjXdtWPTIOfiPjoJMbk+1wsbmNVb+woK9zCtOO5NR4CKu 1+APyi07qjeX4WyRyICFdLBS7c+DOSpqT9IORuBgA7q4PWOBVKNzmgZcryIWPZemHZxx RipA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQli+ERDVsPnIhNGi1qS2AD8U9Qj2o4UjbXRvJJe28+LyMrVszIQL1I1whRbZy4wbLwFINtY MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.221.37.9 with SMTP id tc9mr565827vcb.39.1383248977571; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 12:49:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.110.134 with HTTP; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 12:49:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [96.49.81.176] In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 12:49:37 -0700 Message-ID: From: Tim Bray To: "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11337ed4f1cb2704ea0ebf1d Cc: Pete Resnick , "json@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Json] AD Review of draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-06 X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 19:49:44 -0000 --001a11337ed4f1cb2704ea0ebf1d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Yes, the versionless one would be my choice. On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) < jhildebr@cisco.com> wrote: > On 10/31/13 10:59 AM, "Tim Bray" wrote: > > >> Section 15.1: Unicode reference still says version 4. > > > > > > > >Oops, will fix unless anyone objects. > > What would you change it to? The versionless reference from here: > > http://www.unicode.org/versions/index.html#References > > > is one way to go. > > -- > Joe Hildebrand > > > > --001a11337ed4f1cb2704ea0ebf1d Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Yes, the versionless one would be my choice.


On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 = at 12:22 PM, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) <jhildebr@cisco.com>= wrote:
On 10/31/13 10:59 AM, &quo= t;Tim Bray" <tbray@textuali= ty.com> wrote:

>> Section 15.1: Unicode reference still says version 4.
>
>
>
>Oops, will fix unless anyone objects.

What would you change it to? =C2=A0The versionless reference from her= e:

http://www.unicode.org/versions/index.html#References


is one way to go.

--
Joe Hildebrand




--001a11337ed4f1cb2704ea0ebf1d-- From mamille2@cisco.com Thu Oct 31 13:06:23 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6ACF821F9E96 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 13:06:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.539 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.539 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.060, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OKfE+-QWPeoQ for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 13:06:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E0EA11E8185 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 13:06:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2610; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1383249962; x=1384459562; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=48CikeAdrcWeeE/6WsbysivhGCEB5YFSk1s6dHqxehU=; b=b8YaQHqZzYOJQQb9HVolvtl3UI0ISKxVzTRouuMSOlU+pcMIXEJixS6x xaVMl83tZ2YmwN0oXTC8pWptnSMWAtv8iJH2Dp1FjjpZipl2Z3c3RSU9l gTi7HWUAptq79K3LHjmcCpxKmR8A0IZeJ0a92Td7IuOAxf1nCMTcXjds2 s=; X-Files: signature.asc : 496 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgoFAJW2clKtJV2d/2dsb2JhbABZgwc4VL9rgSgWdIIlAQEBBIEJAgEIGAokMiUCBAESCAEFh3kNvHGPHjiDIIEOA5AugTCYNYMmgio X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,611,1378857600"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="276198451" Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP; 31 Oct 2013 20:06:01 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x11.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x11.cisco.com [173.37.183.85]) by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r9VK60se017818 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 31 Oct 2013 20:06:00 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x11.cisco.com ([169.254.6.88]) by xhc-rcd-x11.cisco.com ([173.37.183.85]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 15:06:00 -0500 From: "Matt Miller (mamille2)" To: Paul Hoffman , "json@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [Json] Unicode version to reference Thread-Index: AQHO1nFxcbpk7Q1RDEu0mODVZLHJHJoPkCqA Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 20:06:00 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1E1010ED-5DD5-4CE4-B79C-8153DBFF9D6F@vpnc.org> In-Reply-To: <1E1010ED-5DD5-4CE4-B79C-8153DBFF9D6F@vpnc.org> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [64.101.72.48] Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_1A7F36EE-3664-4ED8-BF57-2164B9336AF1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Json] Unicode version to reference X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 20:06:23 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_1A7F36EE-3664-4ED8-BF57-2164B9336AF1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Oct 31, 2013, at 1:40 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > >=20 > On Oct 31, 2013, at 12:22 PM, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) = wrote: >=20 >> On 10/31/13 10:59 AM, "Tim Bray" wrote: >>=20 >>>> Section 15.1: Unicode reference still says version 4. >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> Oops, will fix unless anyone objects. >>=20 >> What would you change it to? The versionless reference from here: >>=20 >> http://www.unicode.org/versions/index.html#References >>=20 >>=20 >> is one way to go. >=20 > In the earlier thread, there were three proposals: >=20 > a) Leave as-is from RFC 4627 >=20 > b) Point to the latest published version >=20 > c) Point to the versionless reference >=20 > The document to date has left it as (a), and is thus = backward-compatible with RFC 4627. ECMA-404 chose (b). No evidence has = been presented that there are any JSON encoders that refuse to write out = characters that are unallocated in any particular version, nor any = parsers that indicate an error if a JSON text contains such a character. >=20 /me dons hat Just to point out that 4627bis-04 includes the URL for the versionless = reference, but describes version 4.0. Given that no one objected to = changing to the versionless reference in past discussions (although it = should be noted that no one strongly advocated for it, either) and no = evidence of harm of existing software has been demonstrated, it would = seem the proper change is to go with c). - m&m Matt Miller < mamille2@cisco.com > Cisco Systems, Inc. --Apple-Mail=_1A7F36EE-3664-4ED8-BF57-2164B9336AF1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJScrgnAAoJEDWi+S0W7cO1hC0H/0UGHsKfGMZLsd4FeYrw0tcA Yc4r6+ZBGNqzYw17qUZRZiLitxHOdyFgrxHHFP09hsI9LgKQ+OoEnY0oL2qaAcg5 2fq/YW7McL6Pe4ioa7fdyHJyFfkU+b/VsiW4z/8A32F84F8zg2oWgTZbuYbrU9Ez e36GawNsKAz4ehbvjpw2bwM1ke7/Ermt6Rpa2i4qwi8gCrc21GUViIy1sof8DTwg N5LT3y4y6p/TI2NZjXwlE+RzY1qR147VfSxJLAxavy7bNcbssdsmJDsCVjJD1ysw 3TDMGzeg7TH7Pk2ZjqkNpC98Bcrb9ulRYzABh76tIA7kPgZLhCnbPoqAy2icM/g= =i82c -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_1A7F36EE-3664-4ED8-BF57-2164B9336AF1-- From nico@cryptonector.com Thu Oct 31 13:06:34 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50BF211E8190 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 13:06:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.421 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.421 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.444, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VvKpIEJENlva for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 13:06:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from homiemail-a95.g.dreamhost.com (caiajhbdccah.dreamhost.com [208.97.132.207]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1016521F9FBA for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 13:06:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from homiemail-a95.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a95.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AF791E081; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 13:06:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gmail.com (108-207-244-174.lightspeed.austtx.sbcglobal.net [108.207.244.174]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by homiemail-a95.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B74EC1E08E; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 13:05:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 15:05:56 -0500 From: Nico Williams To: Pete Resnick Message-ID: <20131031200553.GE29480@gmail.com> References: <52728545.6080009@qti.qualcomm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <52728545.6080009@qti.qualcomm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: "json@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Json] AD Review of draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-06 X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 20:06:35 -0000 On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 11:28:53AM -0500, Pete Resnick wrote: > Section 1.1: I am amused by the fact that the uses of > MUST/SHOULD/MAY in this document (the original uses) all appear to > be conformance uses, whereas all of the new interoperability > language avoids MUST/SHOULD/MAY, even though 2119 says that it > should be used for the latter, rather than the former. I will hold > my nose. It's informative text, not normative. Normally we'd want such text to be normative, not merely interop advice. We couldn't get consensus to make any changes to the normative language, therefore all interop advice had to be informative. This is bad wordsmithing or a failure to understand RFC2119 and the Standards Track -- it's just an explicit failure to get consensus. Perhaps the I-D should actually state that "...after some sturm und drang (over 1,000 messages to the WG mailing list), no consensus could be reached for substantial changes to the normative description of JSON...". Nico -- From presnick@qti.qualcomm.com Thu Oct 31 14:13:07 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C63C121E8091 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 14:13:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.608 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.608 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.010, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1ey6bYi7FjtZ for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 14:13:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wolverine02.qualcomm.com (wolverine02.qualcomm.com [199.106.114.251]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A9E411E8231 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 14:12:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qti.qualcomm.com; i=@qti.qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1383253977; x=1414789977; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to; bh=uTcAlk9E+G/CN225aGGcK7RplWMRYDfEt+3TlqJDhnQ=; b=AgGaapueZPgalifIuiJ3TfK1/+Om3H1sxJG5HQgSYT/wasnPSmj/PX9Q c4fx9yuF5bcNNsWBCHj+JQXXNDCNINQ3Zc94GCj7BMcdwbH4ODZVNyTRs R32bMd+keGPZ0Q7JiCXnMWkSmCSQYfFMPbBy0Ps2D11cm76lM8dPx+EtP U=; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,7245"; a="84260752" Received: from ironmsg01-lv.qualcomm.com ([10.47.202.180]) by wolverine02.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 31 Oct 2013 14:12:55 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,7245"; a="22261967" Received: from nasanexhc06.na.qualcomm.com ([172.30.48.21]) by ironmsg01-lv.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 31 Oct 2013 14:12:54 -0700 Received: from nasanexhc05.na.qualcomm.com (172.30.48.2) by nasanexhc06.na.qualcomm.com (172.30.48.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 14:12:54 -0700 Received: from presnick-mac.local (172.30.48.1) by qcmail1.qualcomm.com (172.30.48.2) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 14:12:44 -0700 Message-ID: <5272C7C6.40305@qti.qualcomm.com> Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 14:12:38 -0700 From: Pete Resnick User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100630 Eudora/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tim Bray References: <52728545.6080009@qti.qualcomm.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------000009020005020203000407" X-Originating-IP: [172.30.48.1] Cc: "json@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Json] AD Review of draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-06 X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 21:13:07 -0000 --------------000009020005020203000407 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 10/31/13 9:59 AM, Tim Bray wrote: > On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 9:28 AM, Pete Resnick > > wrote: > > Abstract: Suggest adding the first sentence of 1.2 and/or some > piece of 1.3 to the end. > > > To avoid duplication, I suggest adding this to the abstract: > > "This document makes no changes to the definition of JSON; it repairs > specification errors and offers experience-based interoperability > guidance." Remember that Abstracts get pulled out and put other places where the rest of the document does not appear. I think the important thing to note is that this is a replacement for 4627. No need to worry about duplication. It's common, and IMO reasonable, in the Abstract. > Section 1 and 2: Neither "serialization" nor "serialized" is > defined. Might be useful. > > > It hasn't harmed interoperability for the last decade or so, let's > assume the readership is capable of working around this. The question of what it means has come up in other contexts. Might be nice to have a definition. If it will cause grief to come up with a non-controversial one, it's not a big deal. pr -- Pete Resnick Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478 --------------000009020005020203000407 Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 10/31/13 9:59 AM, Tim Bray wrote:
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 9:28 AM, Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com> wrote:

Abstract: Suggest adding the first sentence of 1.2 and/or some piece of 1.3 to the end.

To avoid duplication, I suggest adding this to the abstract:

 “This document makes no changes to the definition of JSON; it repairs specification errors and offers experience-based interoperability guidance.”

Remember that Abstracts get pulled out and put other places where the rest of the document does not appear. I think the important thing to note is that this is a replacement for 4627.

No need to worry about duplication. It's common, and IMO reasonable, in the Abstract.

Section 1 and 2: Neither "serialization" nor "serialized" is defined. Might be useful.

It hasn’t harmed interoperability for the last decade or so, let’s assume the readership is capable of working around this.

The question of what it means has come up in other contexts. Might be nice to have a definition. If it will cause grief to come up with a non-controversial one, it's not a big deal.

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478
--------------000009020005020203000407-- From duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp Thu Oct 31 20:54:37 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8365821E8147 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 20:54:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.971 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.971 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.181, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fa51b4ZQkuQc for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 20:54:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scintmta02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (scintmta02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp [133.2.253.34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFFA911E82CC for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 20:54:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scmse02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp ([133.2.253.231]) by scintmta02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (secret/secret) with SMTP id rA13sLP1030545; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 12:54:21 +0900 Received: from (unknown [133.2.206.134]) by scmse02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp with smtp id 4888_0ae9_4a5d0104_42a9_11e3_a0eb_001e6722eec2; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 12:54:20 +0900 Received: from [IPv6:::1] (unknown [133.2.210.1]) by itmail2.it.aoyama.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10AA8BF4D7; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 12:54:21 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <527325DE.9030203@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2013 12:54:06 +0900 From: =?UTF-8?B?Ik1hcnRpbiBKLiBEw7xyc3Qi?= Organization: Aoyama Gakuin University User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100722 Eudora/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pete Resnick References: <52728545.6080009@qti.qualcomm.com> <5272C7C6.40305@qti.qualcomm.com> In-Reply-To: <5272C7C6.40305@qti.qualcomm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Tim Bray , "json@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Json] AD Review of draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-06 X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2013 03:54:37 -0000 Hello Pete, On 2013/11/01 6:12, Pete Resnick wrote: > On 10/31/13 9:59 AM, Tim Bray wrote: >> To avoid duplication, I suggest adding this to the abstract: >> >> "This document makes no changes to the definition of JSON; it repairs >> specification errors and offers experience-based interoperability >> guidance." > > Remember that Abstracts get pulled out and put other places where the > rest of the document does not appear. I think the important thing to > note is that this is a replacement for 4627. > > No need to worry about duplication. It's common, and IMO reasonable, in > the Abstract. In terms of content, some overlap between abstract and intro obviously is necessary. However, I'd like to remind you of the discussion starting at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg09936.html. Regards, Martin.