Re: [Json] Topic #4: Software Behavior

Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> Mon, 28 April 2014 21:13 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 3FC921A7030 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 14:13:57 -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 U-dCuPTpfAxv for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 14:13:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ve0-f170.google.com (mail-ve0-f170.google.com [209.85.128.170]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6AC11A6FBB for <json@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 14:13:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ve0-f170.google.com with SMTP id sa20so211556veb.15 for <json@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 14:13:51 -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=k7egYT+OVad/TK592V3bd3RkWvhZ4VjU/wWWOuvvRqs=; b=J1qHreQHDdbHFjs2eKbgqwfpiGD4B63JD7ylEfPEE2mFXhp+iG/EQ8kkPR6DG5fJ0L 53sGjIb8V4B6n17WyPqhb3Y32Z8CCCOpPLYOPIH7j0USNS1bFluFumTqoYoZEAiKbFHd tDoeLaWwLkBLb1IWLTPFxQzCDrWw5pbiqgkIwR++rCNrODpGLosNcZmDcnBSrFjshs5K YuqBMWkWJZWlGXhtT3/b4dBQsNKA2A8Ac1k/KQeEEuIjpaGEkgonlGCUa/N/8gGd4wkf ioCmcZx3IBNTvcAoEX81POt4aILCp3mhzS1CMz+r4xub5oJBxTtiswZVQ7pMJJfeKaZz i9sw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn2cctdbAEbzGcD3Uif/YUzCzFq/l8sFAXl90/XVhcCwoi8oDkmLTDsKxJ4/w6mmyjNhwMu
X-Received: by 10.52.237.228 with SMTP id vf4mr1804916vdc.47.1398719631861; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 14:13:51 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.220.98.73 with HTTP; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 14:13:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [96.49.81.176]
In-Reply-To: <CAO1wJ5Q1KcVDu0o-aYNqmH1L9get=KpFaohZ1owBZ1Poo7VN+g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <535EB33F.7090006@cisco.com> <CAK3OfOhCWQAgVjX0MVR1z=rgZ3wJ2nmByH3cGZo1ZdqWZaOyqw@mail.gmail.com> <CAO1wJ5Q1KcVDu0o-aYNqmH1L9get=KpFaohZ1owBZ1Poo7VN+g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 14:13:31 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHBU6iuGcaaDKJciXJNv7aVn2fxJ2O7aO8p0rzcUPckea3PLQA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jacob Davies <jacob@well.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0122f6aacc3dbb04f820ca56
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/blK_tLZIaGoqzZbYedGdmjmAViw
Cc: IETF JSON WG <json@ietf.org>
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 21:13:57 -0000

My mental model is that some working group, for example over in JOSE, says
“messages MUST be I-JSON” and then people who are implementing the code
that receives such messages tells the JSON library to go into i-json mode.



On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 1:52 PM, Jacob Davies <jacob@well.com> wrote:

> It seems to me that all the requirements of the I-JSON profile (which
> I think is a good idea) are to be satisfied at the emitting end. The
> reading end can be I-JSON compliant, but the whole point is that any
> old JSON parser is very likely to be able to read I-JSON, isn't it?
>
> With no separate media type and no in-band marker, how can an parser
> possibly know it is looking at an I-JSON document? Therefore how can
> the compulsory error-handling behavior be specified? Or is the idea
> that an I-JSON parser is this strict about *all* JSON documents? In
> which case, this is essentially an effort to get the common
> understanding of "normal JSON" to be identical with I-JSON since
> I-JSON parsers will reject some legal JSON documents (which is true of
> any parser of course). Again I think that's probably a good idea as
> far as numbers & duplicate keys & illegal escapes are concerned.
>
> _______________________________________________
> json mailing list
> json@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>