To be clear, this is a Last Call comment on http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-07 The JSON Data Interchange Format (draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-07). On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > To improve JSON interoperability the IETF should not define a more > restricted version of JSON than defined by Ecma-404. > > Parsers exist that can parse "42" today and parsers that cannot parse > "42" today can be meaningfully upgraded to do so too. This would not > break those parsers, unless they depend on parsing 42 as an error, > which is a far more unlikely scenario than parsing it as 42 given > precedence. > > (Worth pondering about: what to do about a leading BOM, which > XMLHttpRequest and browsers allow, but neither IETF nor Ecma-404 > allow.) -- http://annevankesteren.nl/