Re: [Json] Regarding JSON text sequence ambiguities (Re: serializing sequences of JSON values)

Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> Tue, 11 March 2014 16:49 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 196D11A0794 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 09:49:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
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 mjDaaB_TKQys for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 09:49:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ve0-f172.google.com (mail-ve0-f172.google.com [209.85.128.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B12831A078B for <json@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 09:49:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ve0-f172.google.com with SMTP id jx11so8825380veb.17 for <json@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 09:48:54 -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:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=DwU0nwHfx58qvzygFPeLhCHtoH6kATZO7Tt4Avdc2rA=; b=F/0uyKnhScPTMJsSjCwUO4zRqxRvxGIKVvvQ5/Zy8Bk4TcGyMCwISSec+dXihAxGAg c8NjXMJL0J3VzCIp3K3yrNITyMMW4kRzFPqNTVV4uccPOhy3hFy+D2iQJymYESa4qOAZ I/IXLI0Ywa/izoo2mqTgWjAHw43YbvPM74FClxAsgL+jZw6/R767OrqZB/sW4ZYJ7sZR XnT1JRqih310IF2ULgKqbqcK3nfBLc66TsinwXjQlDSPGY/wGh0Vasi+7CbMjLGcyMnc xg94mdvh4Qw7G+fEnUnLZB3W/plQcBLiQsQvITNAw7bfiGI984IAVJsmCafuZ3DtVIon iEKQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk5EBYkTheF+ef0/W2niXilekpCijyrvYDWia3d19o7MbAG0ThA7owZzEd54fIQuld1NDuu
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.58.190.99 with SMTP id gp3mr935025vec.32.1394556534839; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 09:48:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.98.73 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 09:48:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [96.49.81.176]
In-Reply-To: <CAK3OfOiPDfWpOZgExTmwwq6WFcuVbyi_z3C0=M9RhQveBhV_+w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAK3OfOj_XQJq-JKAjNdH-GuH0_UwZfeWntgyyizMpTLmSaWQoA@mail.gmail.com> <CAK3OfOio58+1yuxQOcvWep1CADMfE1PVC48XDid0dWvd8=SVjA@mail.gmail.com> <CAOXDeqoYb=NXz4ikMxAg3EHFA+903bFgdpR_BL-K18U2oYriXQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAK3OfOiPDfWpOZgExTmwwq6WFcuVbyi_z3C0=M9RhQveBhV_+w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 09:48:54 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHBU6iuRyRd95Wa_omGS1_T52t+s0AKjWPUW21EAh2ySHuFp=A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
To: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b675bf0e0ef4304f4577ee7
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/OcYcoFEB2fsT3wdLfrtxjLklm2w
Cc: "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>, Matthew Morley <matt@mpcm.com>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] Regarding JSON text sequence ambiguities (Re: serializing sequences of JSON values)
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: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 16:49:04 -0000

Heh, I wonder if there’d be any chance of getting consensus.  I can’t
imagine ever using anything but Object Object Object with optional
whitespace separator; unless we all agree on that going in I’d pessimistic
about anyone convincing anyone else...



On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>wrote;wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Matthew Morley <matt@mpcm.com> wrote:
> > This issue came up with json-rpc structures and streaming json, which
> while
> > not directly related in that we expect to encounter only objects at the
> top
> > level... having guidance on handling top-level streaming is important for
> > json.
>
> Arguably JSON text sequences are a new format, deserving of its own
> MIME type and so on.  The change in JSON top-level value syntax didn't
> really break JSON text sequencing as a) there were plenty of encoders
> and parsers that handled non-array/object top-level values anyways, so
> b) the ambiguity already existed.
>
> Maybe we should publish an RFC on JSON text sequences?
>
> Nico
> --
>
> _______________________________________________
> json mailing list
> json@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>