I was actually puzzling about where to send them, I guess
draft-ietf...bis.all will do the right thing.
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 9:01 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
> > Minor issues:
> > s4: The unordered nature of the entries in an object is not mentioned.
> > Presumably it should state that two objects
We could a one-sentence paragraph to the end of 4: “Implementations also
differ as to whether or not they make the order of object members available
to receiving software.”
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 6:02 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
> Elwyn: thank you for your careful review (as always!) of specificatio
ordering will be interoperable in the sense that they will not be
affected by these differences.”
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 8:08 AM, Tim Bray wrote:
> We could a one-sentence paragraph to the end of 4: “Implementations also
> differ as to whether or not they make the order of object members ava
t; SEPARATOR TWO, U+001E. Much cleaner.
>
> Just say it must be UTF-8 encoded text, done.
>
>Patrik
>
>
> ___
> json mailing list
> j...@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/js
tion">"receiving implementations"
>
>
Yup.
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Meral
>
> ---
>
> Meral Shirazipour
>
> Ericsson
>
> Research
>
> www.ericsson.com
>
--
- Tim Bray (If you’d like to send me a private message, see
https://keybase.io/timbray)
___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Meral Shirazipour <
meral.shirazip...@ericsson.com> wrote:
> Nits/editorial comments:
>>
>> -Please spell out acronyms at first use. E.g. JSON, I-JSON
>>
>
> I disagree. People know what JSON stands for, and for those who don’t
> spelling it out wouldn’t help.
With respect, I disagree with the reviewer's characterization of the
document and thus with her conclusion.
As she says, this specification does not specify nor require any behavior
of JSON parsers, as specified at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8259.html#section-9 - it is orthogonal to
RFC825
On Oct 20, 2024 at 7:51:34 PM, Dale Worley via Datatracker
wrote:
> Reviewer: Dale Worley
> Review result: Ready with Issues
>
First of, thanks Dale, and this is an example of the last-call process
being useful, getting a fresh pair of eyes onto the doc unsurprisingly
turns up a bunch of issues.
