Thread: JSON docs: RFC7159 is now superceded
Minor doc patch to replace with latest RFC number Intended for PG15 -- Simon Riggs http://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
Attachment
Simon Riggs <simon.riggs@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> Minor doc patch to replace with latest RFC number
Hmm, I'm a bit disinclined to claim compliance with a new RFC
sight unseen. What were the changes?
regards, tom lane
On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 at 14:53, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Simon Riggs <simon.riggs@enterprisedb.com> writes: > > Minor doc patch to replace with latest RFC number > > Hmm, I'm a bit disinclined to claim compliance with a new RFC > sight unseen. What were the changes? I checked... so I should have mentioned this before https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8259#appendix-A -- Simon Riggs http://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
On 2022-04-13 We 09:38, Simon Riggs wrote: > Minor doc patch to replace with latest RFC number > > Intended for PG15 Idea is fine, but - data, as specified in <ulink url="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7159">RFC - 7159</ulink>. Such data can also be stored as <type>text</type>, but + data, as specified in <ulink url="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8259">RFC + 8259</ulink>, which supercedes the earlier <acronym>RFC</acronym> 7159. + Such data can also be stored as <type>text</type>, but Do we need to mention the obsoleting of RFC7159? Anyone who cares enough can see that by looking at the RFC - it mentions what it obsoletes. I haven't checked that anything that changed in RFC8259 affects us. I doubt it would but I guess we should double check. cheers andrew -- Andrew Dunstan EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com