< draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-05.txt   draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-06.txt >
JSON Working Group T. Bray, Ed. JSON Working Group T. Bray, Ed.
Internet-Draft Google, Inc. Internet-Draft Google, Inc.
Obsoletes: 4627 (if approved) October 08, 2013 Obsoletes: 4627 (if approved) October 11, 2013
Intended status: Standards Track Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: April 11, 2014 Expires: April 14, 2014
The JSON Data Interchange Format The JSON Data Interchange Format
draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-05 draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-06
Abstract Abstract
JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) is a lightweight, text-based, JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) is a lightweight, text-based,
language-independent data interchange format. It was derived from language-independent data interchange format. It was derived from
the ECMAScript Programming Language Standard. JSON defines a small the ECMAScript Programming Language Standard. JSON defines a small
set of formatting rules for the portable representation of structured set of formatting rules for the portable representation of structured
data. data.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
skipping to change at page 1, line 35 skipping to change at page 1, line 35
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 11, 2014. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 14, 2014.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 21 skipping to change at page 2, line 21
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Specifications of JSON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2. Specifications of JSON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3. Introduction to This Revision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.3. Introduction to This Revision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.4. Changes from RFC 4627 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. JSON Grammar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. JSON Grammar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. Arrays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Arrays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6. Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7. Strings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Strings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8. String and Character Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. String and Character Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8.1. Encoding and Detection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8.1. Encoding and Detection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8.2. Unicode Characters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8.2. Unicode Characters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8.3. String Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8.3. String Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9. Parsers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9. Parsers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 10. Generators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10. Generators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 13. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
13. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 14. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
14. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 15. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
15. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 15.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
15.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 15.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
15.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Appendix A. Changes from RFC 4627 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Appendix A. Changes in -04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Appendix B. Changes in -05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) is a text format for the JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) is a text format for the
serialization of structured data. It is derived from the object serialization of structured data. It is derived from the object
literals of JavaScript, as defined in the ECMAScript Programming literals of JavaScript, as defined in the ECMAScript Programming
Language Standard, Third Edition [ECMA-262]. Language Standard, Third Edition [ECMA-262].
JSON can represent four primitive types (strings, numbers, booleans, JSON can represent four primitive types (strings, numbers, booleans,
and null) and two structured types (objects and arrays). and null) and two structured types (objects and arrays).
skipping to change at page 3, line 29 skipping to change at page 3, line 26
JSON's design goals were for it to be minimal, portable, textual, and JSON's design goals were for it to be minimal, portable, textual, and
a subset of JavaScript. a subset of JavaScript.
1.1. Conventions Used in This Document 1.1. Conventions Used in This Document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
The grammatical rules in this document are to be interpreted as The grammatical rules in this document are to be interpreted as
described in [RFC4234]. described in [RFC5234].
1.2. Specifications of JSON 1.2. Specifications of JSON
A description of JSON in ECMAScript terms first appeared in version This document is an update of [RFC4627], which described JSON and
5.1 of the ECMAScript specification [ECMA-262], section 15.12. It registered the Media Type "application/json".
includes a description of the differences between JSON as described
in that specification and in RFC4627. The most significant is that
ECMAScript 5.1 does not require a JSON Text to be an Array or an
Object; thus, for example, "Hello world!", "42", and "true" would all
be valid JSON texts in the ECMAScript 5.1 context.
JSON is also described in [ECMA-404]. A description of JSON in ECMAScript terms appears in version 5.1 of
the ECMAScript specification [ECMA-262], section 15.12. JSON is also
described in [ECMA-404]. ECMAscript 5.1 enumerates the differences
between JSON as described in that specification and in RFC4627. The
most significant is that ECMAScript 5.1 does not require a JSON Text
to be an Array or an Object; thus, for example, these constructs
would all be valid JSON texts in the ECMAScript context:
None of the specifications of JSON syntax disagree on the syntax of o "Hello world!"
the language.
1.3. Introduction to This Revision o 42
o true
All of the specifications of JSON syntax agree on the syntactic
elements of the language.
1.3. Introduction to This Revision
In the years since the publication of RFC 4627, JSON has found very In the years since the publication of RFC 4627, JSON has found very
wide use. This experience has revealed certain patterns which, while wide use. This experience has revealed certain patterns which, while
allowed by its specifications, have caused interoperability problems. allowed by its specifications, have caused interoperability problems.
Also, a small number of errata have been reported. Also, a small number of errata have been reported.
This revision does not change any of the rules of the specification; This revision does not change any of the rules of the specification;
all texts which were legal JSON remain so, and none which were not all texts which were legal JSON remain so, and none which were not
JSON become JSON. The revision's goal is to fix the errata and JSON become JSON. The revision's goal is to fix the errata and
highlight practices which can lead to interoperability problems. highlight practices which can lead to interoperability problems.
1.4. Changes from RFC 4627
This section lists all changes between this document and the text in
RFC 4627.
o Changed Working Group attribution to JSON Working Group.
o Changed title of document.
o Change the reference to [UNICODE] to be be non-version-specific.
o Added a "Specifications of JSON" section.
o Added an "Introduction to this Revision" section.
o Added language about duplicate object member names and
interoperability.
o Applied erratum #607 from RFC 4627 to correctly align the artwork
for the definition of "object".
o Changed "as sequences of digits" to "in the grammar below" in
"Numbers" section.
o Added language about number interoperability as a function of
IEEE754, and an IEEE754 reference.
o Added language about interoperability and Unicode characters, and
about string comparisons. To do this, turned the old "Encoding"
section into a "String and Character Issues" section, with three
subsections: The old "Encoding" material, and two new sections for
"Unicode Characters" and "String Comparison".
o Changed guidance in "Parsers" section to point out that
implementations may set limits on the range "and precision" of
numbers.
o Removed the language "Interoperability considerations: n/a" from
the "IANA Considerations" section.
o Made a real "Security Considerations" section, and lifted the text
out of the existing "IANA Considerations" section.
o Applied erratum #3607 from RFC 4627 by removing the security
consideration that begins "A JSON text can be safely passed" and
the JavaScript code that went with that consideration.
o Added a note to the "Security Considerations" section pointing out
the risks of using the "eval()" function in JavaScript or any
other language in which JSON texts conform to that language's
syntax.
o Added "Contributors" section crediting Douglas Crockford.
o Moved the ECMAScript reference from Normative to Informative,
updated it to reference ECMAScript 5.1, and added reference to
ECMA 404.
2. JSON Grammar 2. JSON Grammar
A JSON text is a sequence of tokens. The set of tokens includes six A JSON text is a sequence of tokens. The set of tokens includes six
structural characters, strings, numbers, and three literal names. structural characters, strings, numbers, and three literal names.
A JSON text is a serialized object or array. A JSON text is a serialized object or array.
JSON-text = object / array JSON-text = object / array
These are the six structural characters: These are the six structural characters:
skipping to change at page 6, line 9 skipping to change at page 4, line 45
value-separator = ws %x2C ws ; , comma value-separator = ws %x2C ws ; , comma
Insignificant whitespace is allowed before or after any of the six Insignificant whitespace is allowed before or after any of the six
structural characters. structural characters.
ws = *( ws = *(
%x20 / ; Space %x20 / ; Space
%x09 / ; Horizontal tab %x09 / ; Horizontal tab
%x0A / ; Line feed or New line %x0A / ; Line feed or New line
%x0D ; Carriage return %x0D ) ; Carriage return
)
3. Values 3. Values
A JSON value MUST be an object, array, number, or string, or one of A JSON value MUST be an object, array, number, or string, or one of
the following three literal names: the following three literal names:
false null true false null true
The literal names MUST be lowercase. No other literal names are The literal names MUST be lowercase. No other literal names are
allowed. allowed.
value = false / null / true / object / array / number / string value = false / null / true / object / array / number / string
skipping to change at page 8, line 7 skipping to change at page 6, line 45
int = zero / ( digit1-9 *DIGIT ) int = zero / ( digit1-9 *DIGIT )
minus = %x2D ; - minus = %x2D ; -
plus = %x2B ; + plus = %x2B ; +
zero = %x30 ; 0 zero = %x30 ; 0
This specification allows implementations to set limits on the range This specification allows implementations to set limits on the range
and precision of numbers accepted. Since software which implements and precision of numbers accepted. Since software which implements
IEEE 754-2008 [IEEE754] is generally available and widely used, good IEEE 754-2008 binary64 (double precision) numbers [IEEE754] is
interoperability can be achieved by implementations which expect no generally available and widely used, good interoperability can be
more precision or range than provided by an IEEE 754 binary64 (double achieved by implementations which expect no more precision or range
precision) number, in the sense that implementations will approximate than these provide, in the sense that implementations will
JSON numbers within the expected precision. A JSON number which is approximate JSON numbers within the expected precision. A JSON
outside those bounds, such as 1E400 or number such as 1E400 or 3.141592653589793238462643383279 may indicate
3.141592653589793238462643383279, may indicate potential potential interoperability problems since it suggests that the
interoperability problems since it suggests that the software which software which created it it expected greater magnitude or precision
created it it expected greater magnitude or precision than is widely than is widely available.
available.
Note that when such software is used, numbers which are integers and Note that when such software is used, numbers which are integers and
are in the range [-(2**53)+1, (2**53)-1] are interoperable in the are in the range [-(2**53)+1, (2**53)-1] are interoperable in the
sense that implementations will agree exactly on their numeric sense that implementations will agree exactly on their numeric
values. values.
7. Strings 7. Strings
The representation of strings is similar to conventions used in the C The representation of strings is similar to conventions used in the C
family of programming languages. A string begins and ends with family of programming languages. A string begins and ends with
skipping to change at page 11, line 4 skipping to change at page 9, line 45
nesting. An implementation may set limits on the range and precision nesting. An implementation may set limits on the range and precision
of numbers. An implementation may set limits on the length and of numbers. An implementation may set limits on the length and
character contents of strings. character contents of strings.
10. Generators 10. Generators
A JSON generator produces JSON text. The resulting text MUST A JSON generator produces JSON text. The resulting text MUST
strictly conform to the JSON grammar. strictly conform to the JSON grammar.
11. IANA Considerations 11. IANA Considerations
The MIME media type for JSON text is application/json. The MIME media type for JSON text is application/json.
Type name: application Type name: application
Subtype name: json Subtype name: json
Required parameters: n/a Required parameters: n/a
Optional parameters: n/a Optional parameters: n/a
Encoding considerations: 8bit if UTF-8; binary if UTF-16 or UTF-32 Encoding considerations: 8bit if UTF-8; binary if UTF-16 or UTF-32.
JSON may be represented using UTF-8, UTF-16, or UTF-32. When JSON
JSON may be represented using UTF-8, UTF-16, or UTF-32. When JSON is written in UTF-8, JSON is 8bit compatible. When JSON is
is written in UTF-8, JSON is 8bit compatible. When JSON is written in UTF-16 or UTF-32, the binary content-transfer-encoding
written in UTF-16 or UTF-32, the binary content-transfer-encoding must be used.
must be used.
Published specification: RFC 4627
Applications that use this media type: Interoperability considerations: Described in this document
JSON has been used to exchange data between applications written Published specification: This document
in all of these programming languages: ActionScript, C, C#,
ColdFusion, Common Lisp, E, Erlang, Java, JavaScript, Lua,
Objective CAML, Perl, PHP, Python, Rebol, Ruby, and Scheme.
Additional information: Applications that use this media type: JSON has been used to exchange
data between applications written in all of these programming
languages: ActionScript, C, C#, Clojure, ColdFusion, Common Lisp,
E, Erlang, Go, Java, JavaScript, Lua, Objective CAML, Perl, PHP,
Python, Rebol, Ruby, Scala, and Scheme.
Magic number(s): n/a Additional information: Magic number(s): n/a
File extension(s): .json File extension(s): .json
Macintosh file type code(s): TEXT Macintosh file type code(s): TEXT
Person & email address to contact for further information: Person & email address to contact for further information: IESG
Douglas Crockford <iesg@ietf.org
douglas@crockford.com
Intended usage: COMMON Intended usage: COMMON
Restrictions on usage: none Restrictions on usage: none
Author: Author: Douglas Crockford
Douglas Crockford douglas@crockford.com
douglas@crockford.com
Change controller: Change controller: IESG
Douglas Crockford <iesg@ietf.org
douglas@crockford.com
12. Security Considerations 12. Security Considerations
Generally there are security issues with scripting languages. JSON Generally there are security issues with scripting languages. JSON
is a subset of JavaScript, but excludes assignment and invocation. is a subset of JavaScript, but excludes assignment and invocation.
Since JSON's syntax is borrowed from JavaScript, it is possible to Since JSON's syntax is borrowed from JavaScript, it is possible to
use that language's "eval()" function to parse JSON texts. This use that language's "eval()" function to parse JSON texts. This
generally constitutes an unacceptable security risk, since the text generally constitutes an unacceptable security risk, since the text
could contain executable code along with data declarations. The same could contain executable code along with data declarations. The same
consideration applies in any other programming languages in which consideration applies in any other programming language in which JSON
JSON texts conform to that language's syntax. texts conform to that language's syntax.
13. Examples 13. Examples
This is a JSON object: This is a JSON object:
{ {
"Image": { "Image": {
"Width": 800, "Width": 800,
"Height": 600, "Height": 600,
"Title": "View from 15th Floor", "Title": "View from 15th Floor",
"Thumbnail": { "Thumbnail": {
"Url": "http://www.example.com/image/481989943", "Url": "http://www.example.com/image/481989943",
"Height": 125, "Height": 125,
"Width": "100" "Width": 100
}, },
"Animated" : false,
"IDs": [116, 943, 234, 38793] "IDs": [116, 943, 234, 38793]
} }
} }
Its Image member is an object whose Thumbnail member is an object and Its Image member is an object whose Thumbnail member is an object and
whose IDs member is an array of numbers. whose IDs member is an array of numbers.
This is a JSON array containing two objects: This is a JSON array containing two objects:
[ [
skipping to change at page 13, line 29 skipping to change at page 12, line 4
"Longitude": -122.026020, "Longitude": -122.026020,
"Address": "", "Address": "",
"City": "SUNNYVALE", "City": "SUNNYVALE",
"State": "CA", "State": "CA",
"Zip": "94085", "Zip": "94085",
"Country": "US" "Country": "US"
} }
] ]
14. Contributors 14. Contributors
RFC 4627 was written by Douglas Crockford. This document was RFC 4627 was written by Douglas Crockford. This document was
constructed by making a relatively small number of changes to that constructed by making a relatively small number of changes to that
document; thus the vast majority of the text here is his. document; thus the vast majority of the text here is his.
15. References 15. References
15.1. Normative References 15.1. Normative References
[IEEE754] IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Floating-Point Arithmetic", 2008, [IEEE754] IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Floating-Point Arithmetic", 2008,
<http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/754/>. <http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/754/>.
[RFC0020] Cerf, V., "ASCII format for network interchange", RFC 20, [RFC0020] Cerf, V., "ASCII format for network interchange", RFC 20,
October 1969. October 1969.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4234] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for [RFC5234] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Syntax Specifications: ABNF", RFC 4234, October 2005. Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008.
[UNICODE] The Unicode Consortium, "The Unicode Standard, Version 4.0 [UNICODE] The Unicode Consortium, "The Unicode Standard, Version 4.0
", 2003, <http://www.unicode.org/versions/latest/>. ", 2003, <http://www.unicode.org/versions/latest/>.
15.2. Informative References 15.2. Informative References
[ECMA-262] [ECMA-262]
European Computer Manufacturers Association, "ECMAScript European Computer Manufacturers Association, "ECMAScript
Language Specification 5.1 Edition ", June 2011, <http:// Language Specification 5.1 Edition ", June 2011, <http://
www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/5.1/>. www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/5.1/>.
[ECMA-404] [ECMA-404]
Ecma International, "The JSON Data Interchange Format ", Ecma International, "The JSON Data Interchange Format ",
October 2013, <http://www.ecma-international.org/ October 2013, <http://www.ecma-international.org/
publications/standards/Ecma-404.htm>. publications/standards/Ecma-404.htm>.
Appendix A. Changes in -04 [RFC4627] Crockford, D., "The application/json Media Type for
JavaScript Object Notation (JSON)", RFC 4627, July 2006.
o Reworded Section 8.2 to talk about strings that are represented in Appendix A. Changes from RFC 4627
the JSON text, rather than the actual text itself. Also fine-
tuned the "will agree on" clause in the interoperability
description.
o Changed "20008" to "2008". This section lists changes between this document and the text in RFC
4627.
o Reworded numeric-interoperability language following on WG o Changed Working Group attribution to JSON Working Group.
discussion, notably referring to availability of software that
does IEEE754 and "approximate JSON numbers within the expected o Changed title of document.
precision". Also took out duplicate language about NaN and Inf.
o Change the reference to [UNICODE] to be be non-version-specific.
o Added a "Specifications of JSON" section.
o Added an "Introduction to this Revision" section.
o Added language about duplicate object member names and
interoperability.
o Applied erratum #607 from RFC 4627 to correctly align the artwork
for the definition of "object".
o Changed "as sequences of digits" to "in the grammar below" in o Changed "as sequences of digits" to "in the grammar below" in
"Numbers" section. "Numbers" section.
Appendix B. Changes in -05 o Added language about number interoperability as a function of
IEEE754, and an IEEE754 reference.
o Removed the numbers-interop text about "frac" and "exp" parts. o Added language about interoperability and Unicode characters, and
about string comparisons. To do this, turned the old "Encoding"
section into a "String and Character Issues" section, with three
subsections: The old "Encoding" material, and two new sections for
"Unicode Characters" and "String Comparison".
o Added the obsoletes 4627 attribute. o Changed guidance in "Parsers" section to point out that
implementations may set limits on the range "and precision" of
numbers.
o Moved the EcmaScript ref from normative to informative, and o Updated and tidied the "IANA Considerations" section.
redirected to point at 5.1.
o Changed numbers language to say that implementations can impose o Made a real "Security Considerations" section, and lifted the text
limits on range *and precision*. out of the existing "IANA Considerations" section.
o Changed section title from "Character Model" to "String and o Applied erratum #3607 from RFC 4627 by removing the security
Character Issues". consideration that begins "A JSON text can be safely passed" and
the JavaScript code that went with that consideration.
o Added "Specifications of JSON" section, and included a reference o Added a note to the "Security Considerations" section pointing out
to ECMA-404. the risks of using the "eval()" function in JavaScript or any
other language in which JSON texts conform to that language's
syntax.
o Removed the consensus-call link from the list of changes. o Changed "100" to 100 and added a boolean field, both in the first
example.
o Added a paragraph about not using eval() in JavaScript or other o Added "Contributors" section crediting Douglas Crockford.
languaegs where JSON syntax matches that language's syntax.
o Reorganized the list of changes so they're ordered like the spec, o Added a reference to RFC4627.
and cleaned up language a bit.
o Moved the ECMAScript reference from Normative to Informative,
updated it to reference ECMAScript 5.1, and added reference to
ECMA 404.
Author's Address Author's Address
Tim Bray (editor) Tim Bray (editor)
Google, Inc. Google, Inc.
Email: tbray@textuality.com Email: tbray@textuality.com
 End of changes. 45 change blocks. 
170 lines changed or deleted 129 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/