Re: [Json] Scope: Wire format or runtime format?

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Sat, 15 June 2013 15:27 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 372BB21F9DC8 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Jun 2013 08:27:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 sPeone51NSvx for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Jun 2013 08:27:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCF1321F9DC7 for <json@ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Jun 2013 08:27:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [209.140.71.190] ([209.140.71.190]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r5FFRTOF066524 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sat, 15 Jun 2013 08:27:38 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\))
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <6FC6B441-B74D-4B9F-B883-065C05890880@lindenbergsoftware.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 11:27:30 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <0E2DB76C-3180-4D27-BD89-07C84A5D3599@vpnc.org>
References: <6FC6B441-B74D-4B9F-B883-065C05890880@lindenbergsoftware.com>
To: Norbert Lindenberg <ietf@lindenbergsoftware.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508)
Cc: json@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Json] Scope: Wire format or runtime format?
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 15:27:42 -0000

On Jun 13, 2013, at 6:47 PM, Norbert Lindenberg <ietf@lindenbergsoftware.com> wrote:

> In looking over older messages on this list, I found a message that made clear to me why we're having this endless discussion about Unicode surrogates - it's because we're not clear whether we're designing a wire format or a format that also for use at runtime:
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/json/current/msg00355.html
> 
> Some people are coming from the runtime point of view, especially ECMAScript, where it's accepted practice to use ill-formed UTF-16 or even non-text in strings. At least the ill-formed UTF-16 is legitimized by section 2.7 of the Unicode standard.
> 
> Other people are coming from the wire protocol point of view, where clean formats are expected, in particular well-formed Unicode code unit sequences according to section 3.9 of the Unicode standard.
> 
> So which one shall it be?

Why not both? RFC 4627 deals with both; why should the update change to restrict that?

--Paul Hoffman