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

[Nico Williams <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 03:25:04PM +0100, Graham Klyne wrote:
> I raised the point because I've found that I can construct XML in a
> way that avoids very long lines (YMMV).  But I've noticed in my work
> with JSON that there is no way to encode long string values over
> multiple lines (even when the strings themselves are multiline
> values).

+1.  Binary is the correct thing to say for any JSON-using protocol
unless the schema used allows one to ensure that UTF-8-encoded JSON
texts have "lines" no longer than 1000 bytes -- but why bother?

> And, as noted, https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7159#section-11 just
> says "binary" for JSON, which seems OK to me, but as you say 7bit or
> 8bit might be OK for some JSON data.

Right, and that's true, but not often possible to ensure.

> (I suspect that in practice these concerns don't arise as 7bit and
> 8bit are primarily email concerns, and my experience is that JSON is
> mostly used in HTTP exchanges.)

Agreed.  This is one of those how many angels can dance on a pin head
kind of debates.  The erratum could be accepted or rejected, and it
wouldn't make a difference.  Since the MIME registration exists outside
the RFC, I think it's better to correct it than to not, and note that
it's not necessary to correct the RFC to correct the registration.  Add
some text discussing the interop considerations if you like.

Nico
--