IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <jhildebr@cisco.com> Tue, 19 February 2013 22:31 UTC

Return-Path: <jhildebr@cisco.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 CEC4A21F8830 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:31:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 wf6mrS0zBVEy for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:31:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4925321F882C for <json@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:31:50 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1887; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1361313110; x=1362522710; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=s8/R0veNB3uqogd3R9aXkA8VEFn9At3GWVdy/qofNPc=; b=DamSEZgbx1FuQt60nF2PQkzHioT9kD7tRzohVVdz4yIQ86IlbrETbyfz Zk7FcuUGJPsVPM7BGmHBPymH/nDruKW7N4W4ubhPfGJCXDfipK1g5aoMP NW4tezvoIjxKnJsms+Yo37xSfSn2RkM+b9ZufE+K/uQUunU3bb6BopUJ6 k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAFAFz8I1GtJXG//2dsb2JhbABFwEKBDRZzgh8BAQEEbgsSAQgOCgpFESUCBAENBQiHeAMPsDqGQQ2JWow3giYxB4JfYQOIMIwgjR6FFYMHgWskGA
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,697,1355097600"; d="scan'208";a="178914641"
Received: from rcdn-core2-4.cisco.com ([173.37.113.191]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 19 Feb 2013 22:31:49 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x02.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x02.cisco.com [173.37.183.76]) by rcdn-core2-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r1JMVnRj002850 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 19 Feb 2013 22:31:49 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com ([169.254.15.195]) by xhc-rcd-x02.cisco.com ([173.37.183.76]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 16:31:49 -0600
From: "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <jhildebr@cisco.com>
To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, "Matt Miller (mamille2)" <mamille2@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [Json] [apps-discuss] JSON mailing list and BoF
Thread-Index: AQHODu/VV0zn7u2LJ02Uk/kU6xbmZ5iBsyqA
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 22:31:48 +0000
Message-ID: <A723FC6ECC552A4D8C8249D9E07425A70F897E94@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHBU6is92fgYKE-mvcUNmN--h2KYkwMJvNGgDCYJ_pt4+xynZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.1.130117
x-originating-ip: [10.129.24.68]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <A78A07905E550C44B6BC999635A67B5A@cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: Francis Galiegue <fgaliegue@gmail.com>, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>, "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 22:31:50 -0000

\u0000 is an exception.

On 2/19/13 3:23 PM, "Tim Bray" <tbray@textuality.com> wrote:

>Options for \uxxxx
>
>- forbid it 
>
>- argue that comparisons MUST be Unicode-codepoint by Unicode-codepoint,
>and specify that \uxxxx specifies a single codepoint
>
>Latter is probably better. -T
>
>
>
>On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Matt Miller (mamille2)
><mamille2@cisco.com> wrote:
>
>[Thank you Paul; removing apps-discuss@]
>
>On Feb 19, 2013, at 3:00 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 ³foó² are different strings, that¹s all.
>>> ³Doctor! It hurts when I do this!²
>>> ³So, don¹t do that!²
>>>
>>
>> (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.
>>
>> 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...
>>
>
>
>And furthermore, "foó" versus "\u0066\u006f\u00f3" (or
>"\u0066\u006f\u006f\u00b4"?).  I think most of us clearly think the
>former is better than the latter, but it does need to be called out.
>
>I also do think some level of discussion on unicode normalization, even
>if the result is "this is out-of-scope," needs to take place.
>
>
>- m&m
>
>Matt Miller < mamille2@cisco.com >
>Cisco Systems, Inc.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



-- 
Joe Hildebrand

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email