Subject: [Json] I-D Action: draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-01.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2016 11:39:25 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Javascript Object Notation Update of the IETF.

        Title           : The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data Interchange Format
        Author          : Tim Bray
	Filename        : draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-01.txt
	Pages           : 15
	Date            : 2016-06-12

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.

   This document removes inconsistencies with other specifications of
   JSON, repairs specification errors, and offers experience-based
   interoperability guidance.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-01

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-01

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: Tim Bray <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2016 11:43:11 -0700

BTW, I ended up revising the language a bit, in a way that might be
controversial.  The text we were looking at talks about the “two documents”
being in sync, but really, there are three: The RFC, ECMA 404, and also
ECMA 262 and its successors.  I think if we’re promising harmony with ECMA,
all three have to be involved.  So I revised it slightly to promise
consistency between “the specifications” generally, not just “two
documents” specifically.  Hope that’s OK.

On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 11:39 AM, <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> json mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>

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

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2016 20:12:16 +0100

Tim Bray wrote:
> ECMA 262

I think that's a regression.

ECMA 262 is *not* defining JSON.

(If you are looking for more sources of definitions, can I offer the
documentation of, say, NSJSONSerialization?)

Of course we'd like JSON implementations to implement JSON, but the
direction of the arrow of normative referencing is very clear here.

Grüße, Carsten

---

From: Tim Bray <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2016 12:28:34 -0700

Huh, I observe that 262 has been updated and now has a reference to 404.
Which means that the assertion in 7159 that 262 also defines JSON is now
incorrect.  So I guess I should put back the two-specs language and remove
the assertion about 262.