IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Json] [apps-discuss] JSON mailing list and BoF

Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> Tue, 19 February 2013 22:20 UTC

Return-Path: <tbray@textuality.com>
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 198BD21F896B for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:20:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.976
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PrcDik30Lzys for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:20:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pa0-f49.google.com (mail-pa0-f49.google.com [209.85.220.49]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B010121F8951 for <json@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:20:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pa0-f49.google.com with SMTP id kp6so3623238pab.8 for <json@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:20:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=Mk78B9xv5G96tmg/oDYnMLLsyblEMGJyd5CiAhM81GQ=; b=bA7n7IWnHPE1jyPB9ndcc5P8L6wqrumQFoih79S5sRV4LesTFsBVLqabLbIXTcptK4 RXpcusUBoPeJu0m64CUMRasJowiFUfKgxnzsQp2i47hrRYQE8AWY/3VsM7yfoMrG6O1b jbT2HSxd5YKXAI/AtSg9sRmZfo3cxkA5xwa6Dq5/YKpw4E/R0s+er3YnudYLsvY618V/ ghbQfVu/JHbuczuVOqBbh/YMm8ubRR1wD9umEBXMqQxmTekIr89Xa8J7I6A7cinIwBlH me/CA2AZSKIwtvxNnz40mzwP0hMrOauMoETMfh20Sxi4lnIICTwRVe9PAG/ZY5IjkE+8 kl0g==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.66.27.241 with SMTP id w17mr25976537pag.59.1361312420510; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:20:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.66.249.129 with HTTP; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:20:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Originating-IP: [172.29.161.33]
In-Reply-To: <CAHBU6iuFU8-BO4k5nneVGg9VCi3rVx=_w4AYz143KmrmEn6zaw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B168042967394367477490@TK5EX14MBXC284.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <A723FC6ECC552A4D8C8249D9E07425A70F8975C6@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com> <CAHBU6iuFU8-BO4k5nneVGg9VCi3rVx=_w4AYz143KmrmEn6zaw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:20:20 -0800
Message-ID: <CAHBU6iurwyeUcQ0pbHHAUS-XTxmGNC=tKB4Y1en3d+L4G=r_sQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
To: "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <jhildebr@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="bcaec529982740bb3204d61b3f2a"
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlzBF7Y90fHK+pRRuzypMO9QrcT2tKkwR88F8oHw1Q+B50Ku3XGkTv0Z/AKUP3aG6cqSZ7E
Cc: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>, "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>, "Matt Miller (mamille2)" <mamille2@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [Json] [apps-discuss] JSON mailing list and BoF
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion related to JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\)." <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: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 22:20:30 -0000

Oops, I was wrong, NaN & INF aren’t in JSON.  D’oh.  -T


On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:34 PM, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> wrote:

> re draft-staykov-hu-json-canonical-form:
> Looks sensible. One gripe:  Why can’t you sign NaN and INF?  They do in
> fact  occur in the field, and it’s not as though a noncanonical
> representation is possible.
>
> -T (who still hasn’t decided if this is actually a good idea)
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:27 PM, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) <
> jhildebr@cisco.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2/19/13 1:47 PM, "Mike Jones" <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>
>> >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.
>>
>> I somewhat agree, but have you at least read
>> draft-staykov-hu-json-canonical-form?  It's pretty straightforward, and
>> nowhere near as scary as xmlenc.
>>
>> --
>> Joe Hildebrand
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> json mailing list
>> json@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>>
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email