On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 08:03:02AM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > > And yes, I think we are wasting time. Seeking interoperability where there is > none is useless. I propose this change to sec. 5.6 of the yang-json document: > > OLD > An anyxml instance is encoded as a JSON name/value pair which MUST > satisfy I-JSON constraints. Otherwise it is unrestricted, i.e., the > value can be an object, array, number, string or one of the literals > "true", "false" and "null". > > NEW > An anyxml instance is encoded as a JSON name/value pair which MUST > satisfy I-JSON constraints. The value can be an object, array, number, > string or one of the literals "true", "false" and "null". > > This BTW also allows for strings containing XML.
Lada, what is the purpose of the second sentence? I checked RFC 7159 and it seems the proposed second sentence simply repeats the set of possible JSON values listed in section 3 of RFC 7159. So why is this sentence technically needed? /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/> _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
