On 2013-11 -27, at 23:00, Tim Bray wrote:
I listed some arguments against this in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2013Oct/0041.html and at the
moment I still believe them. Is there new information?
On top of that, I have no fear of anyone trying to change JSON in the future;
they would be resoundingly ignored by the community of implementers. I speak
as one who would love to add built-in date/time literals but know that it
won’t happen. -T
JSON is interesting in being a subset of ECMAscript. That is a big dependency
-- will it be preserved?
However as it is unwise to feed JSON into an ECMAscript processor for security
reasons, that dependency may not affect code, just mean that JSON and
ECMAscript parsers can share parts at the moment.
One could imagine that the arc of ECMAscript's evolution could end up
having all kinds of impact on the data structure syntax and semantics.
(unordered sets as alternative to lists? who knows). So in that case one
could imagine pressure to make a new version of JSON to match.
Yes, literal ISO dates and dateTimes -- I added them to my own N3/turtle
parsers without much fanfare, wish they had been put in the Turtle language
too. Maybe they will.
-timbl
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Alex Russell
<slightlyoff(_at_)google(_dot_)com> wrote:
Will you also be citing ECMA-404 normatively to avoid this sort of divergence
in the future?
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Tim Bray <tbray(_at_)textuality(_dot_)com>
wrote:
To do this, I think the draft requires these changes:
- Remove the trailing section of section 1.2, starting with “ECMAscript 5.1
enumerates...” [because the difference no longer exists]
- In section 2:
-- remove “A JSON text is a serialized object or array.”
-- Insert: “A JSON text is a serialized value. Note that certain previous
specifications of JSON constrained a JSON text to be an object or an array.
Implementations which generate only objects or arrays where a JSON text is
called for will be interoperable in the sense that all implementations will
accept these as conforming JSON texts.”
-- Change the JSON-text production to read:
JSON-text = value
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 10:21 AM, Matt Miller (mamille2)
<mamille2(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> wrote:
There appears to be consensus to change JSON-text to allow for any JSON value
-- not just object / array -- while noting that object or array as the
top-level is the most interoperable.
We will ask the Document Editor to make this change to
draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis.
- Paul Hoffman and Matt Miller
_______________________________________________
json mailing list
json(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json