Re: [Json] Call for Consensus: Proposed Text for "8.1 Character Encoding"

[Martin J. Dürst <[e-mail]>]

On 2017/03/24 06:37, Matthew A. Miller wrote:
> On 17/03/23 15:49, John Cowan wrote:

>> In that case, discourage implementation of anything but UTF-8.

> Our sponsoring AD and I have been discussing this option.  Alexey is
> willing to go through another IETF last call if we can get consensus.
>
> To start, to what degree is UTF-8 encouraged?
>
> 0) don't encourage UTF-8 more than already is
> 1) SHOULD encode as UTF-8 for all usages
> 2) SHOULD encode as UTF-8 where the media type is 'application/json'
> 3) MUST encode as UTF-8 where the media type is 'application/json'
> 4) other -- please specify

The more UTF-8, and the less of anything else, the better for 
interoperability.

So ideally, that would be "MUST use UTF-8".

The next would be "SHOULD use UTF-8, but MAY use UTF-16/32 if they are 
sure the intended recipient can process it". (This would go together 
with (4) above.)

The next would be (3).

I'm fine if we need another IETF last call to get closer to the above. 
I'm also fine if we don't need another last call, even if the consensus 
falls somewhere else.

I still don't see why some people insist on keeping UTF-16/UTF-32. As 
far as I see it, the fact that it has been mentioned in earlier RFCs 
isn't relevant content-wise (because it's just confusing to people to 
mention these encodings when all they need to do is use UTF-8), and also 
isn't relevant process-wise (it's a good idea to remove usused/unusable 
options when rewriting a spec, and the IETF does this all the time).

Regards,   Martin.