Re: [Json] The text in draft-ietf-json-text-sequence

Paul Hoffman <> Mon, 14 July 2014 21:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 216981A00F8 for <>; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 14:02:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.347
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.347 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id c7D8NSJDOZQ0 for <>; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 14:02:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 59D201A00F6 for <>; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 14:02:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.8/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s6EL2Xib094840 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for <>; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 14:02:34 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from
X-Authentication-Warning: Host [] claimed to be []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Paul Hoffman <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 14:02:33 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Subject: Re: [Json] The text in draft-ietf-json-text-sequence
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 21:02:36 -0000

[[ Another nudge on the topic. If no one else cares, that's fine, but I suspect there are people who have not answered the questions who have opinions. ]]

On Jul 7, 2014, at 1:57 PM, Paul Hoffman <> wrote:

> Greetings again. There is still disagreement in the WG about what the text separator should be for draft-ietf-json-text-sequence. The current draft, draft-ietf-json-text-sequence-04, specifies it as the LF character, and gives rationale for that decision in Section 2.2. Many people in the WG have expressed a preference for a different character, one that would not require any stripping from the normal whitespace that can exist inside the JSON text. There were many suggestions for such a different character; the one that seemed most favored was the ASCII record separator (RS) character, U+001e.
> In order to simplify the decision, I'd like to ask a few simple questions:
> - Do you feel that the protocol will be significantly broken if it uses LF as the text separator?
> - Do you feel that the protocol will be significantly broken if it uses RS as the text separator?
> - Do you feel that using LF or RF as the text separator is essentially the same for the protocol?
> Answers of "yes", "no", and "don't know" are most appreciated. Explanation of a "yes" and "no" are probably not helpful at this time because they are likely to cause the thread to go off into discussion of the explanation, not of the questions.
> Wearing my chair hat, I'm not sure how I will respond depending on different patterns in the results. Let's answer the questions and then see what we think it means.
> --Paul Hoffman