Re: [Json] Using a non-whitespace separator (Re: Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-json-text-sequence)

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Wed, 04 June 2014 17:43 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
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 BD67D1A0259 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Jun 2014 10:43:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.347
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.347 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553] 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 x2alXNuz9PFL for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Jun 2014 10:43:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A59A81A0254 for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Jun 2014 10:43:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.20.30.90] (50-1-51-90.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.51.90]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.8/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s54Hh9NH046491 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 4 Jun 2014 10:43:10 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: hoffman.proper.com: Host 50-1-51-90.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.51.90] claimed to be [10.20.30.90]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.2\))
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAK3OfOg_k4Ngq+z1pn4b+XRf0M1Hqx8qZ9BtW0sa8QQ+bjKJyA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2014 10:43:07 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <084664DB-A55D-465E-8888-97BA0BB59637@vpnc.org>
References: <CAK3OfOidgk13ShPzpF-cxBHeg34s99CHs=bpY1rW-yBwnpPC-g@mail.gmail.com> <CAHBU6itr=ogxP4uoj57goEUSOCpsRx1AXVnW1NQwSTPxbbttkw@mail.gmail.com> <CAK3OfOhft+XJeMrg5rdY9E6fxAkJ2qsT3UHwu7zt=NEz2Q3XOQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAK3OfOhy-N0zjCVxtOMB8SqZEKceVvBz9Y6i0fo2W8i+gHKm4Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAK3OfOiQnLq29cv+kas3B8it-+82VmXvL3Rq1C5_767FDhBjRg@mail.gmail.com> <03CFAB3E-F4C6-4AE8-A501-8525376C4AA7@vpnc.org> <CAK3OfOja-17V391tTK91R98X8XQzd0iPnur2=oo4ii+MCOt+Rg@mail.gmail.com> <CFB42410.4EDDC%jhildebr@cisco.com> <CAMm+Lwime-=UQPu3t2ty05CZLb7xUMi9KGi31Xi2B7RNF5S3Og@mail.gmail.com> <CAK3OfOg_k4Ngq+z1pn4b+XRf0M1Hqx8qZ9BtW0sa8QQ+bjKJyA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.2)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/WNQB7fejj0gx7Nr-bUJVSC9azfA
Cc: Phillip Hallam-Baker <ietf@hallambaker.com>, Joe Hildebrand Hildebrand <jhildebr@cisco.com>, IETF JSON WG <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] Using a non-whitespace separator (Re: Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-json-text-sequence)
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: Wed, 04 Jun 2014 17:43:27 -0000

<no hat>

On Jun 4, 2014, at 9:12 AM, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> wrote:

> Alright.  Two proposals:
> 
> 1) Writers MUST precede texts with RS, and SHOULD follow texts with LF.
> 
> (RS must precede at least so as to make any complete text parseable
> even if the preceding one was written incompletely.  LF is needed so
> as to make line-oriented tooling happy.)
> 
> 2) Writers of logfiles (or any case where incomplete writes are a
> problem) MUST do the same as in (1).  Other writers need only emit
> (MUST emit) an LF after each text.  Symmetrically, parsers MUST be
> able to parse either form.

(1) seems much cleaner than (2).

--Paul Hoffman