Subject: [Json] Fwd: Mail regarding draft-ietf-json-i-json - JSON "objects"

From: Tim Bray <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2014 11:18:17 -0700

Oops, just realized this went to the draft-feedback alias, but not to the
WG.

I think Paul Warren is right and the draft is wrong, it should say “JSON
value”.  Can at least one other person chime in with a sanity check?

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Paul Warren <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 3:03 AM
Subject: Mail regarding draft-ietf-json-i-json - JSON "objects"
To: [email-masked]

Hi,

I've just been reviewing the I-JSON draft, and I believe that there's a
typo in 4.1:

"4.1.  Top-level Constructs

   An I-JSON message can be any JSON object.  However, there are
   software implementations, coded to the older [RFC4627] specification,
   which only accept JSON objects or JSON arrays at the top level of
   JSON texts.  For maximum interoperability with such implementations,
   it is RECOMMENDED that protocol designers avoid the use of JSON texts
   which are neither objects nor arrays.
"

I think that this should say "An I-JSON message can be any JSON *value*..."

regards,

Paul
-- 
Technical Director, XBRL International
+44 7977 144893 / +44 1993 880687

-- 
- Tim Bray (If you’d like to send me a private message, see
https://keybase.io/timbray)

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2014 14:26:00 -0400

> value”.  Can at least one other person chime in with a sanity check?

+1

-- 
John Cowan          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan        [email-masked]
"Your honour puts yourself to much trouble correcting my English and
doubtless the final letter will be much better literature; but it will
go from me Mukherji to him Bannerji, and he Bannerji will understand it a
great deal better as I Mukherji write it than as your honour corrects it."
        --19th-century Indian civil servant to his British superior

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2014 20:39:13 +0200

On 05 Aug 2014, at 20:18, Tim Bray <[email-masked]> wrote:

> sanity check

Keeping some semblance of sanity would need us to stop talking about “objects” entirely in the context of JSON.

Call the set-of-key-value-pair things “maps” (tables, dictionaries, hashes, …).
Call the data items “data items” (although value is probably fine, too).

Too bad we missed this simple editorial fix for 7159.

Grüße, Carsten