[Json] The text in draft-ietf-json-text-sequence

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Mon, 07 July 2014 20:57 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 079EF1B2906 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Jul 2014 13:57:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.347
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.347 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0T_gOMjBcLY8 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Jul 2014 13:57:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5398C1B28E9 for <json@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Jul 2014 13:57:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.20.30.90] (50-1-51-60.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.51.60]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.8/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s67Kvkt2005440 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for <json@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Jul 2014 13:57:47 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: hoffman.proper.com: Host 50-1-51-60.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.51.60] claimed to be [10.20.30.90]
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <FD9026FF-BDC5-451C-ABBC-0608AB63B819@vpnc.org>
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2014 13:57:45 -0700
To: IETF JSON WG <json@ietf.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/-F7LuWSfx4O9LFEE4xC4edpdaFQ
Subject: [Json] The text in draft-ietf-json-text-sequence
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" <json.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/json>, <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/json/>
List-Post: <mailto:json@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json>, <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2014 20:57:49 -0000

Greetings again. There is still disagreement in the WG about what the text separator should be for draft-ietf-json-text-sequence. The current draft, draft-ietf-json-text-sequence-04, specifies it as the LF character, and gives rationale for that decision in Section 2.2. Many people in the WG have expressed a preference for a different character, one that would not require any stripping from the normal whitespace that can exist inside the JSON text. There were many suggestions for such a different character; the one that seemed most favored was the ASCII record separator (RS) character, U+001e.

In order to simplify the decision, I'd like to ask a few simple questions:

- Do you feel that the protocol will be significantly broken if it uses LF as the text separator?

- Do you feel that the protocol will be significantly broken if it uses RS as the text separator?

- Do you feel that using LF or RF as the text separator is essentially the same for the protocol?

Answers of "yes", "no", and "don't know" are most appreciated. Explanation of a "yes" and "no" are probably not helpful at this time because they are likely to cause the thread to go off into discussion of the explanation, not of the questions.

Wearing my chair hat, I'm not sure how I will respond depending on different patterns in the results. Let's answer the questions and then see what we think it means.

--Paul Hoffman