Re: [Json] Scope: Wire format or runtime format?

I think the IETF, at least at the Apps area, is in the business of network
protocols, so I see our job here primarily as getting the wire-format
aspects right.

 -T

On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 8:27 AM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote:

> On Jun 13, 2013, at 6:47 PM, Norbert Lindenberg <
> ietf@lindenbergsoftware.com> wrote:
>
> > In looking over older messages on this list, I found a message that made
> clear to me why we're having this endless discussion about Unicode
> surrogates - it's because we're not clear whether we're designing a wire
> format or a format that also for use at runtime:
> > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/json/current/msg00355.html
> >
> > Some people are coming from the runtime point of view, especially
> ECMAScript, where it's accepted practice to use ill-formed UTF-16 or even
> non-text in strings. At least the ill-formed UTF-16 is legitimized by
> section 2.7 of the Unicode standard.
> >
> > Other people are coming from the wire protocol point of view, where
> clean formats are expected, in particular well-formed Unicode code unit
> sequences according to section 3.9 of the Unicode standard.
> >
> > So which one shall it be?
>
> Why not both? RFC 4627 deals with both; why should the update change to
> restrict that?
>
> --Paul Hoffman
> _______________________________________________
> json mailing list
> json@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>