Re: [apps-discuss] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6839 (4367)

[Ned Freed <[e-mail]>]

> [For context, this is originating from the work at the W3C regarding CSV files]

> There appears to be an issue about how to specify encoding
> considerations for media types that can be encoded in UTF-8, UTF-16
> and UTF-32. For media types, the valid choices are 7-bit, 8-bit and
> binary, which would mean that UTF-16 and UTF-32 are binary. For JSON
> specifically, since both RFCs define JSON, there is a conflict.

> There are two ways to write this then:

> 1. As in RFC 6839:

> "When JSON is written in UTF-8, JSON is 8bit compatible ([RFC2045]).
> When JSON is written in UTF-16 or UTF-32, JSON is binary ([RFC2045])."

> 2. As per RFC 7159:

> "binary"

> What I am arguing is that the second approach would make more sense.

And that's a fine opinion to have, but others disagree. The fact remains that
both statements are correct; we have always allowed a simple statement of the
most general encoding that applies to the type or a more detailed  statement of
what encodings apply under certain circumstances. The registrations rules allow
either approach.

I also note that you have yet to identify any sort of conflict here.

> Just like RFC 7159 choose to use "binary" in case of multiple UTF
> encodings, we should follow the same approach in RFC 6839. If not,
> then RFC 7159 should have errata pointing back to RFC 6839.

You are free to use whichever approach you wish. But in no case is an erratum
appropriate.

				Ned