JSON docs: RFC7159 is now superceded

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