Re: [jose] canonical JSON

David Waite <david@alkaline-solutions.com> Tue, 19 February 2013 21:02 UTC

Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_34182363-A38F-46A1-9BD3-C992D21C587C"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\))
From: David Waite <david@alkaline-solutions.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHBU6iu3soqk92j3tKpXNErFsgLm6SZ8V30A=Gf7DcbZCYFqkA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:02:20 -0700
Message-Id: <F818E19C-BD39-4F9E-A05C-13340067F947@alkaline-solutions.com>
References: <CAG8k2+4xaAUBPs=Kw-=eBHZNyOMs6VYByPEb1jnAv1aGjLupng@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnWzdoo6b0ZymF0cv_v9zOjJKTWuUhkWuxiA-cM9qgu0jg@mail.gmail.com> <CAG8k2+47GQXHhWBdqd82UEAPZUfAigYE-vwxpaMJm4F5i8098A@mail.gmail.com> <CAL02cgQ3Oh1D9qHW7XWAZqzmfnE5T6-FjNydjpMEMhaHf2d7Xw@mail.gmail.com> <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E1150757902D@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com> <CAG8k2+5mVYJ6TgQHJ9juXEaWkfMteG6gV8w_dCoShP4-9fPqMA@mail.gmail.com> <CAL02cgRZkf8rR=gAuR6ZT61WCah3aWQNAq8d+GLWweehH7jN6A@mail.gmail.com> <BF7E36B9C495A6468E8EC573603ED9411513E85D@xmb-aln-x11.cisco.com> <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B1680429673943674774DA@TK5EX14MBXC284.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <CAHBU6iu3soqk92j3tKpXNErFsgLm6SZ8V30A=Gf7DcbZCYFqkA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Cc: Daniel Holth <dholth@gmail.com>, Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>, jose <jose@ietf.org>, "Matt Miller (mamille2)" <mamille2@cisco.com>, "Manger, James H" <James.H.Manger@team.telstra.com>
Subject: Re: [jose] canonical JSON
Precedence: list

I think JSON canonicalization and potential transforms could be a limiting factor in adoption. In terms of technical challenges (outside deciding on string normalization), I suspect some JSON implementations might break due to the use of integer types to represent non-floating-point numbers in their parsed data.  

As an example, the integer 9007199254740993 can't be represented in a Javascript Number type, as numbers are actually doubles. A 64-bit integer would have no problem representing it, however.

-David Waite

On Feb 19, 2013, at 1:50 PM, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> wrote:

> My instinct, as the author of a reasonably popular library that generates canonical XML, is that JSON ought to be quite a bit easier.  But that’s only interesting if Mike is wrong and there aren’t better alternatives. -T
> 
> 
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 12:48 PM, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com> wrote:
> [Repeating this on the correct thread...]
> 
> I'm strongly against canonicalization.  The XML canonicalization experience was horrible and resulted in more interop bugs than any other aspect of XML DSIG, XML ENC, etc.  Let's not repeat the mistakes of our elders. ;-)
> 
> I also haven't seen a clear use case that canonicalization solves that can't be more easily solved another way.
> 
>                                 -- Mike

[jose] JWK-specific key fingerprints? Daniel Holth
Re: [jose] JWK-specific key fingerprints? Stephen Farrell
Re: [jose] JWK-specific key fingerprints? Martin Thomson
Re: [jose] JWK-specific key fingerprints? Daniel Holth
Re: [jose] JWK-specific key fingerprints? Richard Barnes
Re: [jose] JWK-specific key fingerprints? Daniel Holth
Re: [jose] canonical JSON Manger, James H
Re: [jose] canonical JSON Daniel Holth
Re: [jose] canonical JSON Richard Barnes
Re: [jose] canonical JSON Matt Miller (mamille2)
Re: [jose] canonical JSON Mike Jones
Re: [jose] canonical JSON Tim Bray
Re: [jose] canonical JSON David Waite
Re: [jose] canonical JSON John Bradley
Re: [jose] canonical JSON Mike Jones
Re: [jose] canonical JSON Justin Richer
Re: [jose] canonical JSON Mike Jones
Re: [jose] canonical JSON Axel.Nennker
Re: [jose] canonical JSON Richard Barnes
Re: [jose] canonical JSON Richard Barnes
Re: [jose] canonical JSON Daniel Holth