Subject: Re: [Json] Last Call: <draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-03.txt> (The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data Interchange Format) to Internet Standard

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 17:54:09 +0100

On 2017-02-21 23:01, Barry Leiba wrote:
> ...

Looking at 
<https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-03.txt&url1=rfc7159>, 
I see:

"Section 15.2 has been updated to remove ECMA 404, update the version of 
ECMA-262, and refresh the errata list."

However, the ECMA-262 reference changes from

>    [ECMA-262] Ecma International, "ECMAScript Language Specification
>               Edition 5.1", Standard ECMA-262, June 2011,
>               <http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/
>               Ecma-262.htm>.

to

>    [ECMA-262]
>               Ecma International, "ECMAScript Language Specification,
>               Third Edition", Standard ECMA-262, December 1999,
>               <http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/
>               ECMA-ST-ARCH/
>               ECMA-262,%203rd%20edition,%20December%201999.pdf>.

...which looks like a downgrade to me.

I believe this should be:

>    [ECMA-262]  Ecma International, "ECMAScript(R) 2016 Language
>                Specification, 7th Edition", ECMA 262, June 2016,
>                <https://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/7.0/>.

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Matthew Miller <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 10:02:04 -0700

>>                <https://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/7.0/>.

Hello Julian,

the rationale for referencing third edition specifically is to give
evidence of the JSON's specification history.  Maybe the word "update"
is debatable here, but I think the reference itself is valid.

- m&m

Matthew A. Miller

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 18:08:08 +0100

> is debatable here, but I think the reference itself is valid.

Well. In that case, why is the 3rd edition a specifically good one to cite?

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 18:12:16 +0100

> Well. In that case, why is the 3rd edition a specifically good one to cite?

It’s the one the JSON design was taken from?

Grüße, Carsten

---

From: Matthew Miller <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 10:13:58 -0700

> Well. In that case, why is the 3rd edition a specifically good one to cite?

Third Edition is where the object literal syntax (from whence JSON was
begotten) made its appearance.  Also, the latest editions of ECMA-262
doesn't discuss JSON the data format; that is what (for them) ECMA-404
is for.

- m&m

Matthew Miller

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 19:11:28 +0100

> doesn't discuss JSON the data format; that is what (for them) ECMA-404

OK. A few words about this, either in the place where it's referenced, 
or as annotation of the reference, would be helpful.

Best regards, Julian