IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <jhildebr@cisco.com> Wed, 20 February 2013 00:08 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 1756521F87A5 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 16:08:40 -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 cXA1LHlz+c0c for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 16:08:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85FF321F87A4 for <json@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 16:08:39 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=728; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1361318919; x=1362528519; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=V4o24NuYq9rehqdX9aMZKfQHAq7xCz2qUayX74vT4+c=; b=Cb/egQVywMAjOhtZFlewpcF2yJavR03uUB8MLL9HelcsoilBIZJh9dO9 sM4sca/qi9a7a8OUq7QrViQk7yvr/YJlr0v5IdmMRsGhBwevuVcIesnX4 vHhs+WFb70zH3DN/lDcD/orKhzSyzqI+5PjWlRTe1EvoozKx5Zu/9I4Ay Y=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AqEFAEsTJFGtJV2b/2dsb2JhbABFhgK6QoEOFnOCIQEEOjQLEgEIDhQUQiUCBA4FCIgKskiOE45dMQeCX2EDpwOCeg2CJw
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,698,1355097600"; d="scan'208";a="178936482"
Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Feb 2013 00:08:39 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x06.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x06.cisco.com [173.37.183.80]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r1K08das030802 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 20 Feb 2013 00:08:39 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com ([169.254.15.195]) by xhc-rcd-x06.cisco.com ([173.37.183.80]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 18:08:38 -0600
From: "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <jhildebr@cisco.com>
To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Thread-Topic: [Json] [apps-discuss] JSON mailing list and BoF
Thread-Index: AQHODu/VV0zn7u2LJ02Uk/kU6xbmZ5iBsyqAgAB3XoCAAAEJgP//kdsAgAB2rYCAAAg/AP//jWIAgAB4BID//4x1gA==
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 00:08:38 +0000
Message-ID: <A723FC6ECC552A4D8C8249D9E07425A70F89850C@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHBU6iuCLnF0L4_S7=44Uy8mY+QWmG-Z9QfYMzMb+QNUgqCs0Q@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: [10.21.119.56]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <A8DE4BFA93DCD1429D0DE0A9A2336F54@cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>, Francis Galiegue <fgaliegue@gmail.com>, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>, "Matt Miller (mamille2)" <mamille2@cisco.com>
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: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 00:08:40 -0000

On 2/19/13 5:02 PM, "Tim Bray" <tbray@textuality.com> wrote:

>Yes, I guess I did sort of strawman-suggest banning \uxxxx.  Which
>clearly doesn't fly.  So, two suggestions:
>
>
>- \uxxxx is only allowed for chars that must be escaped per the JSON spec
>
>- \uxxxx is freely allowed, but the \uxxxx is considered to represent a
>single codepoint, and all comparison/hashing operations have to be
>conducted codepoint-by-codepoint
>
>I think I probably support the first, because it does allow comparison
>using strcmp() or equivalent. That's assuming that c14n is in fact worth
>doing. -T

+1 to the first approach, and also +1 about not knowing whether we need to
do c14n or not yet.

-- 
Joe Hildebrand

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email