IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] draft-pbryan-zyp-json-pointer: name syntax for non-ASCII

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Mon, 21 November 2011 20:56 UTC

Return-Path: <mnot@mnot.net>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCCE711E80F1 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Nov 2011 12:56:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.386
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.386 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.787, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RhGORp9JcNnQ for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Nov 2011 12:55:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net (mxout-08.mxes.net [216.86.168.183]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 694B011E80BA for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Nov 2011 12:55:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mnot-mini.mnot.net (unknown [118.209.190.198]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E585950A6B; Mon, 21 Nov 2011 15:55:51 -0500 (EST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <4ECAB0BC.0@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 07:55:47 +1100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <6462023D-F767-45DE-9AF0-011CC48374CF@mnot.net>
References: <4ECA5C66.1040305@gmx.de> <1321903463.1990.16.camel@neutron> <4ECAA9FE.6080802@gmx.de> <1321905599.1990.23.camel@neutron> <4ECAAF39.8000702@gmx.de> <1321906189.1990.26.camel@neutron> <4ECAB0BC.0@gmx.de>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1)
Cc: IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] draft-pbryan-zyp-json-pointer: name syntax for non-ASCII
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 20:56:04 -0000

+1 to Julian here -- there's no reason why non-ASCII chars need to be percent-encoded when they occur inside a JSON document, only when they're in a URI (or similar context).

Cheers,


On 22/11/2011, at 7:12 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> On 2011-11-21 21:09, Paul C. Bryan wrote:
>> The intent is to allow a JSON Pointer to be expressed as a JSON string
>> value as well as a URI fragment identifier. The latter is the most
>> significant driver for URI percent-encoding.
>> ...
> 
> Well, you could use it as fragment identifier (or otherwise URI component) by UTF-8-percent-escaping.
> 
> The question is whether that use case requires them to be all ASCII every else, such as in a JSON patch document.
> 
> Best regards, Julian
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> apps-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email