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

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Tue, 19 February 2013 01:44 UTC

Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
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 C3CAE21F8B63 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 17:44:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.594
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.594 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.005, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 tpPwRNT7a6UJ for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 17:44:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D67EA21F8B36 for <json@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 17:44:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.3] (unknown [71.237.13.154]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4B81B403CD; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 18:51:57 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <5122D904.4020308@stpeter.im>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 18:44:36 -0700
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107 Thunderbird/17.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
References: <1ah5i81al3ug4qgmgjqgjnl5evf6jc1qnq@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de> <A723FC6ECC552A4D8C8249D9E07425A70F8952D9@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com> <78l5i81cpnbq0f21p1vvdia496err839vi@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
In-Reply-To: <78l5i81cpnbq0f21p1vvdia496err839vi@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <jhildebr@cisco.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 01:44:37 -0000

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 2/18/13 6:41 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> * Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) wrote:
>> On 2/18/13 5:26 PM, "Bjoern Hoehrmann" <derhoermi@gmx.net>
>> wrote:
>>> 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.
> 
> A practical problem is that some people include a Unicode Signature
> in their JSON documents, and their code works in some environments
> either by accident or because someone made a deliberate choice to
> support the Unicode Signature even though the RFC does not permit
> one, but it would break in more strict implementations. I would
> expect the Working Group to investigate whether the "UTF-8 BOM"
> should be allowed and how JSON documents with one should be
> handled, even if it decides to limit JSON to UTF-8.

Yeah, limiting things to UTF-8 these days would be a good thing. But,
as Bjoern notes, we might want to have a section about
interoperability with existing implementations.

Peter

- -- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=+WRL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----