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

Pete Cordell <petejson@codalogic.com> Fri, 28 April 2017 14:28 UTC

Return-Path: <petejson@codalogic.com>
X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88BDA1294CD for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 07:28:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.92
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.92 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.982, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=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 UqYjaXTgYWwv for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 07:28:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppsa-online.com (lvps217-199-162-192.vps.webfusion.co.uk [217.199.162.192]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D414112EAA4 for <json@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 07:23:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 6253 invoked from network); 28 Apr 2017 15:16:10 +0100
Received: from host109-156-176-225.range109-156.btcentralplus.com (HELO ?192.168.1.72?) (109.156.176.225) by lvps217-199-162-217.vps.webfusion.co.uk with ESMTPSA (DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA encrypted, authenticated); 28 Apr 2017 15:16:10 +0100
To: "Matthew A. Miller" <linuxwolf+ietf@outer-planes.net>
References: <e69d7c21-85cb-45f4-c0c2-34c624e63049@outer-planes.net> <14252631-AD76-4537-89BF-6368F4A8CDF4@att.com> <7e6af21f-16ea-a3bc-9c01-595ae8acebba@gmx.de> <05100401-88D4-4158-A3FF-3EF144D85449@att.com> <CAD2gp_T0bfpnsCA_t4BAMtEhr7p8JkZggjnY4F+m9-M2hWLfmw@mail.gmail.com> <1e94516c-9c82-8b0e-0d2d-7dbaa83b21bd@outer-planes.net> <40e3207f-e047-c898-1f0c-4422de1d597a@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <1b3ec14a-927a-8d46-e3d3-9807a9588437@outer-planes.net> <CAHBU6ivsq8+Z=MMkUH+=Q0uwc5NCtaJLYw5cp0Qg8eX2hQQ6sA@mail.gmail.com> <b74cb31b-8e04-17d0-548a-fc164ce07c05@outer-planes.net> <20170417175627.GK23461@localhost> <10B651F1-7FE0-484D-BD2E-FD146BC5FB04@tzi.org> <eabbccb0-8d15-d595-7cd0-37acc0621c57@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <6eb23f90-6623-7888-bc1c-6640a9dababc@codalogic.com> <61bfad2b-850d-a11f-e80b-d5ed9ccb4dc9@codalogic.com> <08a88696-65ef-da05-0d77-1a07d04ebfc8@outer-planes.net>
Cc: "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>
From: Pete Cordell <petejson@codalogic.com>
Message-ID: <bb9fead6-23e7-8c1d-bc80-b60c81c4b89a@codalogic.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 15:23:45 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <08a88696-65ef-da05-0d77-1a07d04ebfc8@outer-planes.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/mSEMmqOTNF_ZLtam-JtdgBZyKv0>
Subject: Re: [Json] Call for Consensus: Proposed Text for "8.1 Character Encoding"
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 14:28:20 -0000

Thanks.  I agree with your summary.

If you removed the sentence which mentions "UTF-16, or UTF-32" from the 
text that you proposed on 17 April, I'd be happy with that text.

Thanks again,

Pete.

On 27/04/2017 17:21, Matthew A. Miller wrote:
> I see consensus for text in Section 8.1 pending an Appendix on encoding
> detection, but nothing for the Appendix itself.
>
> Looking deeper in the threads again, it appears to me that:
>
> * There is consensus to say "just use UTF8" in many (most) scenarios
> * There is rough consensus to say "always use UTF8", but concern this
> change goes beyond the charter
> * There is no consensus on a detection algorithm
>
> While the charter calls for "absolute minimal changes", it calls out RFC
> 7159 (and its -bis) as documenting "interoperability concerns when
> exchanging JSON over a network".  Documenting this interoperability is
> one of its primary goals.
>
> Therefore, the argument is made that a change to the effect of "JSON
> text MUST be encoded as UTF-8" is considered an "absolute minimum
> change" in order to achieve the goal of network interoperability.
>
> To the working group:
>
> * Is there strong objection to mandating only UTF-8?
> * Does anyone have suggested text to that effect?
>
>
> - m&m
>
> Matthew A. Miller
> JSONbis Chair