Re: [Json] Regarding JSON text sequence ambiguities (Re: serializing sequences of JSON values)

Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com> Tue, 11 March 2014 19:20 UTC

Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.com>
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 ED0A41A07C6 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 12:20:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 mPdZKldlBZgQ for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 12:20:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-la0-x22a.google.com (mail-la0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::22a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BBD31A07B7 for <json@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 12:20:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-la0-f42.google.com with SMTP id ec20so5980536lab.15 for <json@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 12:19:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=ZtPwUqig87ry5tf9grwvdjmVyTaG89+lMoEIHkpgFOA=; b=HMQOvK6OWKkRqDeXzIBEjPJl9iWKzpFyKzkZWFw+L1QHkxNQ+hYoMqxy1OFzuXnl8M xVDSP0ohJB38pQbkKgBWHA4c1VbrODVO7FQlFso7BtbBdBCeybXr7k0qAtg/OV+dC2yV U+OVRrBt1BpkWyWCXJsbFXBNUnHUndb1raFPg4leKXuUFZ804SVDR/yMMzbhbZ2Ne4Qh jMZU7PZTXmSHWGLSHdX9+WlsTxGJjmyLjWgoIGrsNQqBatdvoutYcE6ysmU2SFMmezG9 DbMta5vtL29OWR1yDVcVWmw/RsBsLjXLia27zUfwe2hL6krJCSoXTe7DU9osRqgtalFC vHyA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.5.136 with SMTP id s8mr105524las.55.1394565597471; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 12:19:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.37.168 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 12:19:57 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAK3OfOj1g_sbnhw9FBCCZtLWsFS5F+aoPX0d5AMkRxQ2fHQi0A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAK3OfOj_XQJq-JKAjNdH-GuH0_UwZfeWntgyyizMpTLmSaWQoA@mail.gmail.com> <CAK3OfOio58+1yuxQOcvWep1CADMfE1PVC48XDid0dWvd8=SVjA@mail.gmail.com> <CAOXDeqoYb=NXz4ikMxAg3EHFA+903bFgdpR_BL-K18U2oYriXQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAK3OfOiPDfWpOZgExTmwwq6WFcuVbyi_z3C0=M9RhQveBhV_+w@mail.gmail.com> <CAHBU6iuRyRd95Wa_omGS1_T52t+s0AKjWPUW21EAh2ySHuFp=A@mail.gmail.com> <CAMm+LwjRA8x0=zXGRVDy0BqYvyOcEp7=gnUiG4vYOb1RScoyrA@mail.gmail.com> <CAK3OfOj1g_sbnhw9FBCCZtLWsFS5F+aoPX0d5AMkRxQ2fHQi0A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 15:19:57 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMm+LwhGbo2twsvhPy2Dde+y8shDcm=ysxL_XtRT53oiC8g7ug@mail.gmail.com>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
To: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b8743a40da92904f4599bc7
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/5eUEMBtJJewKqUJxIyX_SzRinQU
Cc: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, Matthew Morley <matt@mpcm.com>, "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] Regarding JSON text sequence ambiguities (Re: serializing sequences of JSON values)
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: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 19:20:08 -0000

On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>wrote;wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 12:09 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Heh, I wonder if there'd be any chance of getting consensus.  I can't
> >> imagine ever using anything but Object Object Object with optional
> >> whitespace separator; unless we all agree on that going in I'd
> pessimistic
> >> about anyone convincing anyone else...
> >
> > But JSON has comma separators, so {..}, {..}, {..} makes far more sense.
>
> JSON text sequences would be a new Proposed Standard (if we go there)
> but like JSON, there exist uses of this "new" thing already -- that
> is, before we get to writing the RFC.
>
> The uses of JSON text sequences that I know of use newlines, not
> commas nor comma-and-newline.  The reason for this is that these use
> cases are text logfile-like: the entries are lines, lines containing
> JSON texts -- usually compact texts, i.e., with no newlines in the
> text, and never more than one text per-line.
>
> For me other uses of JSON text sequences generally result from my use
> of jq, which also effectively separates texts with a newline.  Note
> that jq doesn't need texts to be written compactly when parsing JSON
> text sequences.  It happens though that if you write texts compactly
> followed by a newline then you can implement JSON text sequences with
> all existing JSON parsers.
>
> Switching to using a comma-and-newline would require significant
> retooling.  Therefore I don't see it happening.  Whereas just
> separating JSON texts with newlines is in use because it's always been
> the obvious thing to do.
>

The constraint that the objects can't have newlines inside the object will
require rather more retooling than a requirement that objects be separated
by commas which is the existing JSON approach.

I think finding a standard JSON way to meet this requirement is
appropriate. Blessing a particular approach that isn't in the existing
grammar is not AFIK.

-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/