JSON Duplicate Keys

Paul Hoffman paul.hoffman at gmail.com
Sun Jun 9 16:19:17 PDT 2013


>At two TC39 meetings, members of TC39 expressed deep concern about the
prospect of incompatible changes to JSON by the IETF.

Those concerns have not been expressed directly to the IETF's JSON Working
Group. I say this as one of the two co-chairs of the JSON WG. If TC39 wants
to express "deep concern", they certainly know where to do so. Them doing
so sooner rather than later would be helpful all around.

I would note that some of the possibly-incompatible changes to RFC 4627
that are being discussed relate to places where the RFC is
self-contradictory or blatantly unclear. In such cases, leaving the RFC
alone might just as easily lead to incompatible implementations as
clarifications would. That is going to have be determined by the IETF's
consensus process.

No one can force anyone here to follow the official WG discussion for the
successor to RFC 4627, of course. However, given that some people on this
list are JSON experts, if you don't want to participate in the evolution of
the RFC, I would be interested in hearing (possibly off-list) why that is.
Part of the job of the chairs is to make sure experts feel welcome in the
IETF process.

--Paul Hoffman


On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Yehuda Katz <wycats at gmail.com> wrote:

> At two TC39 meetings, members of TC39 expressed deep concern about the
> prospect of incompatible changes to JSON by the IETF. It seems as though
> the IETF would like to consider one or more incompatible changes to JSON as
> part of this standardization process. There is extremely little support on
> TC39 for such changes.
>
> We could keep an eye on the IETF list for the introduction of incompatible
> changes and keep popping up to express this sentiment, but I believe that
> it would be better if any proposed incompatible changes were raised here
> before there was serious consideration in the IETF.
>
> I do not believe that "you should have been paying attention" will be
> sufficient to gain consensus on TC39 for incompatible changes.
>
> Yehuda Katz
> (ph) 718.877.1325
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 10:50 AM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Just a note to emphasize what was said a few days ago: the revision of
>> the JSON RFC is being discussed in the IETF right now. This topic is
>> certainly one of the many that the JSON WG is discussing. If you want to
>> participate in the conversation in a way that will affect the new RFC, you
>> should probably be doing so in the JSON WG. Info at
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 9:51 AM, David Bruant <bruant.d at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>  Le 07/06/2013 06:41, Kevin Smith a écrit :
>>>
>>>
>>>   +∞
>>>>
>>>> "Get off my lawn!" comment (I will tag in and tag Doug out of the
>>>> grumpy old men smackdown ring): you kids stop fiddling with JSON. It needs
>>>> "fixing" like it needs a hole in the head.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>  Comment syntax sure would be nice though : P
>>>
>>> As others suggested, create a different format that looks like JSON and
>>> has comments. And just add yet another build-step to your build process.
>>> Very much like what happens with SASS (comments are remove when compilation
>>> to CSS occurs)
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> es-discuss mailing list
>>> es-discuss at mozilla.org
>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> es-discuss mailing list
>> es-discuss at mozilla.org
>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20130609/0d0ee3a3/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list