[Json] Two Documents

Douglas Crockford <douglas@crockford.com> Thu, 13 June 2013 15:51 UTC

Message-ID: <51B9EA49.2050604@crockford.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 08:50:33 -0700
From: Douglas Crockford <douglas@crockford.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [Json] Two Documents
Precedence: list

The confusion and controversy around this work is due to a mistake that I
made in RFC 4627. The purpose of the RFC, which is clearly indicated
in the title, was to establish a MIME type. I also gave a description of
the JSON Data Interchange Format. My mistake was in conflating the two,
putting details about the MIME type into the description of the format. My
intention was to add clarity. That obviously was not the result.

JSON is just a format. It describes a syntax of brackets and commas that
is useful in many contexts, profiles, and applications. JSON is agnostic
about all of that stuff. JSON shouldn't even care about character encoding.
Its only dependence on Unicode in the hex numbers used in the \u notation.
JSON can be encoded in ASCII or EBCDIC or even Hollerith codes. JSON can
be used in contexts where there is no character encoding at all, such as
paper documents and marble monuments.

There are uses of JSON however in which such choices matter, and where
behavior needs to be attached to or derived from the syntax. That is
important stuff, and it belongs in different documents. Such documents
will place necessary restrictions on JSON's potential. No such document
can fit all applications, which causes much of the controversy we've seen
here. One size cannot fit all. JSON the format is universal. But real
applications require reasonable restrictions.

So we should be working on at least two documents, which is something we 
have
discussed earlier. The first is The JSON Data Interchange Format, which is
a simple grammar. The second is a best practices document, which recommends
specific conventions of usage.

[Json] Two Documents Douglas Crockford
Re: [Json] Two Documents John Cowan
Re: [Json] Two Documents Douglas Crockford
Re: [Json] Two Documents Mark Miller
Re: [Json] Two Documents Markus Lanthaler
Re: [Json] Two Documents Tim Bray
Re: [Json] Two Documents Carsten Bormann
Re: [Json] Two Documents Nico Williams
Re: [Json] Two Documents John Cowan
Re: [Json] Two Documents Jacob Davies
Re: [Json] Two Documents R S
Re: [Json] Two Documents Tim Bray
Re: [Json] Two Documents Eliot Lear
Re: [Json] Two Documents Matt Miller (mamille2)
Re: [Json] Two Documents Vinny A
Re: [Json] Two Documents Paul Hoffman
Re: [Json] Two Documents Douglas Crockford
[Json] On representing what ECMA wants Paul Hoffman
Re: [Json] Two Documents Paul Hoffman
Re: [Json] On representing what ECMA wants Rick Waldron
Re: [Json] On representing what ECMA wants Mark Miller
Re: [Json] On representing what ECMA wants Paul Hoffman
Re: [Json] Two Documents Markus Lanthaler
Re: [Json] Two Documents Stefan Drees
Re: [Json] Two Documents Tim Bray
Re: [Json] Two Documents Carsten Bormann
Re: [Json] Two Documents Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)
Re: [Json] Two Documents John Cowan
Re: [Json] Two Documents Nico Williams
Re: [Json] Two Documents Pete Cordell
Re: [Json] Two Documents Carsten Bormann