| 20:22 | <Aki> | Is the normative reference to RFC 8259 in ECMA-404 problematically recursive? or totally normal and I need to stop overthinkig it? |
| 20:27 | <nicolo-ribaudo> | Til nobody defines JSON and everybody just assumes somebody else is doing it |
| 20:47 | <Richard Gibson> | it's fine; they're cross-synchronized
https://tc39.es/ecma404/#sec-normative-references
This specification and RFC 8259 both provide specifications of the JSON grammar but do so using different formalisms. The intent is that both specifications define the same syntactic language. If a difference is found between them, Ecma International and the IETF will work together to update both documents.
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8259/#section-1.2
JSON is also described in [ECMA-404].
The reference to ECMA-404 in the previous sentence is normative, not with the usual meaning that implementors need to consult it in order to understand this document, but to emphasize that there are no inconsistencies in the definition of the term "JSON text" in any of its specifications.
…
If there is a difference found between them, ECMA and the IETF will work together to update both documents.
|
| 20:48 | <Aki> | huh |
| 20:56 | <Aki> | shouldn't that be in a note? |
| 20:56 | <Richard Gibson> | I don't think so; it really is normative in both directions |
| 20:57 | <Aki> | i just mean the explanatory text |
| 20:58 | <Aki> | the normative reference itself is fine |