IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Json] Topic #4: Software Behavior

Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> Mon, 28 April 2014 20:43 UTC

Return-Path: <tbray@textuality.com>
X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C58401A802C for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 13:43:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.377
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.377 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_51=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w9jYykxFCVow for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 13:43:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vc0-f182.google.com (mail-vc0-f182.google.com [209.85.220.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80F531A7032 for <json@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 13:43:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vc0-f182.google.com with SMTP id lf12so6760148vcb.13 for <json@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 13:43:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=fFLAvJrj0RKgjgI9TSc8fBDO0pbAnMo38pcGCOSqV1I=; b=I9Sg7jb17N+7r+NxUQNgbhWuc7geGcZqOJTu2SyxGa9CAc6aR7+h5C1Ot1uWgQt5nD tS2iZuxQrOxmn4wtUragIhgp75awupswS9ufo+IJQfTfKMDX+tLeE1PGIjMbr3qtvDUj XIbYZjucnMQcCRU8zjB+QMSayecwe3WcxKEf0azhq5yAALEMluOohAg16IJ90OiaBJ7f KVnuILocvX248/V4zP4HmK5Cd1MPZR8V5ElsFnhrbyFP3qGMbqGFVQhcrepBCIZN3FOf KrlqlR/xh1Y3U2relugZgM1goyJq4e7bAuiCSF8/y64Wacw+z34a7B6nSuwCKkZxIUWT nVeA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlgBLAkXd9zNSAf6vvKyLh7xdF0eWv9tJC7FBVA6tdV1lMZru1l0WDJn191NjE+F81/ROVk
X-Received: by 10.58.207.74 with SMTP id lu10mr25191167vec.15.1398717829568; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 13:43:49 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.220.98.73 with HTTP; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 13:43:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [96.49.81.176]
In-Reply-To: <CAK3OfOhCWQAgVjX0MVR1z=rgZ3wJ2nmByH3cGZo1ZdqWZaOyqw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <535EB33F.7090006@cisco.com> <CAK3OfOhCWQAgVjX0MVR1z=rgZ3wJ2nmByH3cGZo1ZdqWZaOyqw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 13:43:28 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHBU6iu22EoCK8VvEXOoXwSFXMRdUfyBSFrQet4-CEr596=maQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b6783ce5f6a7c04f8205fa8
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/OMu-XGTr-ipKk6mshAHuZcbhkGQ
Cc: IETF JSON WG <json@ietf.org>, Matt Miller <mamille2@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [Json] Topic #4: Software Behavior
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" <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: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 20:43:51 -0000

Draft language would be helpful.


On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>wrote;wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Matt Miller <mamille2@cisco.com> wrote:
> > "Section 3 of draft-json-01 implies draconian error handling - when a
> > message is specified to be i-json but the receiver finds, for example,
> > a dupe key, it is required to halt and catch fire. There?s a chance
> > that this will be interpreted as 'tbray poisons JSON with XML
> > draconianism'. People with alternate language should suggest it."
> >
> > If you have suggestions for better text -- or other comments/concerns
> > on this language -- please respond to this thread with your
> > suggestions or reasoning.
>
> As in my latest reply as to top-level value types, I think this is
> best expressed as requiring an option in parser implementations.  IMO
> it'd be very bad if I-JSON parsers were to exist that are not also
> JSON parsers (at least as an option) and which might then crowd out
> JSON.
>
> Nico
> --
>
> _______________________________________________
> json mailing list
> json@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>

v2.8.10 | Report a Bug | By Email