Re: [Json] Regarding JSON text sequence ambiguities (Re: serializing sequences of JSON values)

Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> Thu, 13 March 2014 21:52 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 046C11A0766 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 14:52:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.478
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.478 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FRT_ADOBE2=2.455, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 qnmeAjD7TxLD for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 14:52:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ve0-f169.google.com (mail-ve0-f169.google.com [209.85.128.169]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C1E31A0664 for <json@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 14:52:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ve0-f169.google.com with SMTP id pa12so1848610veb.0 for <json@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 14:52:09 -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:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=VQKjGBnuWsUyLyzBUpzFnsTiP943vbPmSOG3jCg7R4U=; b=kvpFg0XdoZ8uePpCY1gNRpC9JebnJ8AsFQUQYDzSFargf8POyH0Itj3nhWfs2ARmdc IVMStv5Vso+bw+VU55cbJ3lyR4zQ3jwYpfXEo9VEpQ58Jq7SnOAFOoLWQeqPKadfkIyH qbQp3ALp7WJcsNiqW82ZXF5qsEkjkE38IiepBAdkwoyaM9dQJFZJvilc5EZjN56GS7GL bRBLA40ei3bzPKHMWAlsbl9e2ogGP+RjKnlhJij+gkPe+/exv6Onat0S/f7FoOCW/gEq oEuRuXxixZtkN8g2P62ioXqnPAfqTu1yecjqGzy9ICoZXeCHc95sb90MnWPhPtMbZytg i57A==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnPeWNp3Mk2LV1xl5Hkct0rxtYsIXjySBeVXJTMhhhiiD2ICm97ZB1Ci4nbBOvHoiql2jg5
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.52.139.237 with SMTP id rb13mr2730537vdb.33.1394747529375; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 14:52:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.98.73 with HTTP; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 14:52:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [96.49.81.176]
In-Reply-To: <664149bc6d3941afad86684fac806a17@BL2PR02MB307.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAK3OfOj_XQJq-JKAjNdH-GuH0_UwZfeWntgyyizMpTLmSaWQoA@mail.gmail.com> <CAK3OfOio58+1yuxQOcvWep1CADMfE1PVC48XDid0dWvd8=SVjA@mail.gmail.com> <CAOXDeqoYb=NXz4ikMxAg3EHFA+903bFgdpR_BL-K18U2oYriXQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAK3OfOiPDfWpOZgExTmwwq6WFcuVbyi_z3C0=M9RhQveBhV_+w@mail.gmail.com> <CAHBU6iuRyRd95Wa_omGS1_T52t+s0AKjWPUW21EAh2ySHuFp=A@mail.gmail.com> <CAMm+LwjRA8x0=zXGRVDy0BqYvyOcEp7=gnUiG4vYOb1RScoyrA@mail.gmail.com> <CAK3OfOj1g_sbnhw9FBCCZtLWsFS5F+aoPX0d5AMkRxQ2fHQi0A@mail.gmail.com> <CAOXDeqpbSmEicxq_JzJa2iQDn8uJp3XkWp3FGbsbpg-_vgOiaQ@mail.gmail.com> <664149bc6d3941afad86684fac806a17@BL2PR02MB307.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 14:52:09 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHBU6iuHO3O=-zHyzLkvLpM34KTK2otLyu-PhHnUf=-cdPbm-Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec52c5ccd0a4c6304f483f73d
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/s2KsL2C0qsGwzjc85vpaNtlrGjo
Cc: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>, "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>, Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>, Matthew Morley <matt@mpcm.com>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] Regarding JSON text sequence ambiguities (Re: serializing sequences of JSON values)
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: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 21:52:18 -0000

Except for, a spec that just rules out the interoperability gotchas in 7159
is such a low-hanging fruit, and avoids so many slippery slopes.  Damn, I
wish that stupid 2028/2029 thing had come across the radar before we
finished 7159.


On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 2:44 PM, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com> wrote:

>  I think most of i-json and also this discussion on JSON sequences would
> fit into a “guidelines” document. “Guidelines for use of JSON in Internet
> protocols”.
>
> Then it could be BCP, could cover \u2028 \u2029, string length limits,
> floating point, separators in sequences, and other advice.
>
>
>
> much more straightforward. It could even cover “JSON vs alternatives” and
> pros and cons comparison to XML, CBOR, ASN.1 and whatever.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* json [mailto:json-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Matthew Morley
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 11, 2014 11:27 AM
> *To:* Nico Williams
> *Cc:* Tim Bray; Phillip Hallam-Baker; Paul Hoffman; json@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Json] Regarding JSON text sequence ambiguities (Re:
> serializing sequences of JSON values)
>
>
>
> I'm not advocating for comma separators...
>
> But having multiple top level JSON elements separated by a coma is
> equivalent to processing an array structure. The initial [ and the closing
> ] are implicitly mapped to the connection/stream/etc. start and end events.
>
> It is just a minor token replacement at the top level between elements,
> which could be layered into some existing tooling. From this point of view,
> I would imagine the retooling is minor for either use case. It does mean
> tools need to be depth aware.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
> wrote:
>
>  On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 12:09 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Heh, I wonder if there’d be any chance of getting consensus.  I can’t
> >> imagine ever using anything but Object Object Object with optional
> >> whitespace separator; unless we all agree on that going in I’d
> pessimistic
> >> about anyone convincing anyone else...
> >
> > But JSON has comma separators, so {..}, {..}, {..} makes far more sense.
>
> JSON text sequences would be a new Proposed Standard (if we go there)
> but like JSON, there exist uses of this "new" thing already -- that
> is, before we get to writing the RFC.
>
> The uses of JSON text sequences that I know of use newlines, not
> commas nor comma-and-newline.  The reason for this is that these use
> cases are text logfile-like: the entries are lines, lines containing
> JSON texts -- usually compact texts, i.e., with no newlines in the
> text, and never more than one text per-line.
>
> For me other uses of JSON text sequences generally result from my use
> of jq, which also effectively separates texts with a newline.  Note
> that jq doesn't need texts to be written compactly when parsing JSON
> text sequences.  It happens though that if you write texts compactly
> followed by a newline then you can implement JSON text sequences with
> all existing JSON parsers.
>
> Switching to using a comma-and-newline would require significant
> retooling.  Therefore I don't see it happening.  Whereas just
> separating JSON texts with newlines is in use because it's always been
> the obvious thing to do.
>
> Nico
> --
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Matthew P. C. Morley
>