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

["Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <[e-mail]>]

On 2/18/13 5:26 PM, "Bjoern Hoehrmann" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>* Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) wrote:
>>A *very* important goal would be to minimize change, and to ensure strict
>>backward-compatibility.
>
>A Working Group will also likely have to look at revising the rules to
>detect the character encoding in application/json resources (there is a
>lack of consensus whether to auto-detect UTF-32 and whether to honour a
>Unicode signature, whether to support UTF-32 when it is detected, and so
>on, partly due to how people load JSON resources; a generic "load text"
>API for instance might detect and remove a Unicode signature before the
>data is passed to a JSON parser; this used to be true for XMLHttpRequest
>for instance, I haven't checked the current situation there though).

(individual)

Yeah, that probably needs to be dealt with.  If 4627 had been written as
"JSON SHALL always be encoded as UTF-8 when transmitted or stored", then
this would not be a problem.

I wonder if it's too late for that?  If we said that the
backward-compatibility rule was that any document that was valid 4627bis
would be correctly parsed by a 4627 parser, going all-in on UTF-8 would be
ok.  Since this is currently valid and proposed to no longer be valid:

{"foo": "bar", "foo": "baz"}

clearly the reverse is not going to be true anyway.

-- 
Joe Hildebrand