Re: [Json] Encoding Schemes

Paul Hoffman <> Tue, 18 June 2013 19:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6128721E8088 for <>; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 12:34:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Yi4d6J0+1JjT for <>; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 12:34:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD26221E805D for <>; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 12:34:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r5IJYCv7094981 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 18 Jun 2013 12:34:13 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\))
From: Paul Hoffman <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 12:34:12 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <>
To: Carsten Bormann <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508)
Subject: Re: [Json] Encoding Schemes
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 19:34:14 -0000

<no hat>

On Jun 18, 2013, at 12:20 PM, Carsten Bormann <> wrote:

> JSON the interchange format, which specifies a sequence of characters, certainly can be encoded in any character encoding scheme that is able to represent the characters that are needed in a specific case. long as the receiver can determine the encoding scheme. Otherwise, there is no chance for meaningful interop.

> JSON the media type (application/json) is specifically limited to UTF-8 (and theoretically the two or possibly four other character encoding schemes listed in RFC 4627; the RFC isn't quite consistent here).

Can you point to the text in the draft that supports that statement? I see the opposite:
   Encoding considerations: 8bit if UTF-8; binary if UTF-16 or UTF-32

     JSON may be represented using UTF-8, UTF-16, or UTF-32.  When JSON
     is written in UTF-8, JSON is 8bit compatible.  When JSON is
     written in UTF-16 or UTF-32, the binary content-transfer-encoding
     must be used.

> There is no way to use another encoding in that media type as there is no charset parameter in the media type.
> (This is intentional and certainly is not a candidate for change.)

It would certainly be my preference to not add a charset parameter in the -bis document; that would seem like a major change.

--Paul Hoffman