Re: [Json] Two Documents

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Thu, 13 June 2013 21:06 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 6F58121F9635 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 14:06:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.964
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.964 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.013, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622]
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 4sogpVX+f9tq for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 14:05:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a87.g.dreamhost.com (caiajhbdcbhh.dreamhost.com [208.97.132.177]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C80A21F9AF3 for <json@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 14:05:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a87.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a87.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46AC026C063 for <json@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 14:05:58 -0700 (PDT)
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; s=cryptonector.com; bh=0A9DxQuy8BbElLrHL/q1 9Y4uR6o=; b=NYXEYnBP30F1z1EHjg9cpEsomw0sLPeX7Jzk/Nx5Vnbiqy+YnY3r 8+ZZU6ULrLoPqR7ZbtiUwa20rmGFNAmQ72siQmQfA0vxZ9a9cUp5UzHUZZhV62wz W8OTM/ajdGMuUyYQx7bDUfW6HclnhZBw7sEIng0ypYUKZxIxo4v8IOg=
Received: from mail-we0-f182.google.com (mail-we0-f182.google.com [74.125.82.182]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by homiemail-a87.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EB40F26C05B for <json@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 14:05:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-we0-f182.google.com with SMTP id p60so6832239wes.27 for <json@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 14:05:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=aY0iGNlhN/txE/pLlpr3NTyGWR5GGhUlHfDQYT2ZK9Y=; b=AUBdzu322ForrS1jCXbzlZTqqw/JRNukg2h71kXIQbh/TspOQcKfG0WqR3BbMF9Qm3 vWkyDsxHbPhJIg8aj5a75Q8oyyf1ynyeKDJvyNeo/zKC4xpQnF/jOmsuXfEWRbFv1PV+ cMzWi2pxwj13Oytk+G7z/sTBfmvCR8m7EFkmovrmDO3A+25I8sDSAV/+7Bbq0fv7jnSH FnpZqP9Z71ID9fcDAgyiiO/0Vmi7/VAosMd2QF/MjAtl/6qFsSQrqZh5+AzM8iawbqWe T+HBn9K/jqOe7Gz+MbGl4Clc7vFOnyJssXXdKcazMHb6AnRpQeCh+DK25ZjG8F/39UIh sf8Q==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.182.83 with SMTP id ec19mr3367617wic.0.1371157556353; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 14:05:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.63.136 with HTTP; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 14:05:56 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <6B248CB6-BDD2-4A24-B69D-FB7A29EEF27F@tzi.org>
References: <51B9EA49.2050604@crockford.com> <CAHBU6iu1O0Z5sNcqsHhGjeEFYimqV9tvDTbxAYy3KFbvBq480w@mail.gmail.com> <6B248CB6-BDD2-4A24-B69D-FB7A29EEF27F@tzi.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 16:05:56 -0500
Message-ID: <CAK3OfOgGq6vCk+dUrvs3fcYTffByiKzfxa_1K6gy-q_upGNa9w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, Douglas Crockford <douglas@crockford.com>, "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] Two Documents
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: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 21:06:03 -0000

On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 3:55 PM, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
> On Jun 13, 2013, at 18:55, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> wrote:
>
>> So... two documents, yes.  Abstract syntax, no.

To be fair "JSON in EBCDIC vs. JSON in UTF-8" are not really
comparable to "ASN.1 w/ DER vs. ASN.1 w/ PER -- a difference of
degree, though not of kind.  :)

> +1
>
> The JSON data interchange format has no use if it is floating in the air.
> It must have both feet firmly on the ground, in concrete syntax, in bits and bytes.
> (And one of the feet can be RFC 3629.)
>
> RFC4627 managed to do this reasonably well, why should it suddenly be hard?

It isn't.  I think the talk of EBCDIC was illustrative or best taken
as such.  Move along, nothing to see here :)

More seriously, we have to iron out the details of what strings really are.

I think we must prohibit certain unescaped code points, but we must
allow any 16-bit number \u-escaped.  This is tied to JavaScript's
handling of those code points as well as to the validity of
UTF-8-encoding those code points.

The best practices document should further recommend the use of proper
Unicode characters only in JSON strings.

Nico
--