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

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Tue, 19 February 2013 22:07 UTC

Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.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 3DE9121F886E; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:07:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.81
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.81 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.833, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622]
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 zL6eSlkm8CUU; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:07:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from homiemail-a72.g.dreamhost.com (caiajhbdcaib.dreamhost.com [208.97.132.81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A38F421F8815; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:07:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from homiemail-a72.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a72.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6CB56B007B; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:07:27 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h= mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from :to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s= cryptonector.com; bh=bEdPwENzm+I+yWoAWYFXxwU1Sf4=; b=jKM0ic5cuQb iZWEKRHjsGtw6JeyTJiZ8AgmT6JQcfH8Z4MqTnb754XKo68f8Fsatr+QGcd6mOVo b6lsiyqWcdumSj/Kxg1BOtdW6PCgbJ5QlD4atajWNn5JQJas59p0M7vu+Sesaoou oWBPvvQNHJAdRr0/jnvf7ZB8ZHGS0gAo=
Received: from mail-ia0-f174.google.com (mail-ia0-f174.google.com [209.85.210.174]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by homiemail-a72.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 780F86B0059; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:07:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ia0-f174.google.com with SMTP id u20so2453537iag.33 for <multiple recipients>; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:07:26 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.43.62.12 with SMTP id wy12mr8278870icb.19.1361311646933; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:07:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.64.102.201 with HTTP; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:07:26 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CALcybBD79Bodp8SPosQGr95c2Mh=bVM=BN+SDc9cGjuO4Qr=CA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B168042967394367477490@TK5EX14MBXC284.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <A723FC6ECC552A4D8C8249D9E07425A70F8975C6@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com> <CAK3OfOi5muC1kBgZHZKCzoVTgQLRLwLmwd3Jnrv_N8AkEkWPkw@mail.gmail.com> <CAHBU6is-Hx5aqthQRVrbcCKC0G2R9=OMVCth+ysvzk8J-PYvxA@mail.gmail.com> <CALcybBD79Bodp8SPosQGr95c2Mh=bVM=BN+SDc9cGjuO4Qr=CA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 16:07:26 -0600
Message-ID: <CAK3OfOhQwfVjOAbFzM7CjO6w2zx70PU8uwukH74nk9tdC_tPhA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Francis Galiegue <fgaliegue@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>
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 22:07:29 -0000

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Francis Galiegue <fgaliegue@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 10:53 PM, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> wrote:
>> I would argue that normalization should be out of scope.  I.e. the two forms
>> of “foó” are different strings, that’s all.
>> “Doctor! It hurts when I do this!”
>> “So, don’t do that!”
>>
>
> (as a not very well educated individual on this matter...)
>
> If _that_ is what normalization is about, then I strongly condemn it
> being even a subject at all.
>
> The current RFC does a pretty good job at defining what a JSON String
> can be, fabricating some sort of injective function so that one JSON
> value is equal to another is sick.

Oh, well, the RFC (4627) says nothing about normalization.  And if you
think the notion is sick wait till you hear the details!  But as you
read what you find when you search for "Unicode normalization" you
should keep one thing in mind: this sickness isn't Unicode's fault --
it's our (humans', that is) fault.

> OK, I say that, but on the other hand, JSON Schema mandates that JSON
> values "1.0" and "1" be considered equal for numeric validation. This
> could also be viewed as a form of normalization...

Indeed.

Nico
--