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

Tony Hansen <tony@att.com> Sat, 15 June 2013 23:33 UTC

Return-Path: <tony@att.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 54A6121F9E34 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Jun 2013 16:33:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O+zmTGdn59kK for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Jun 2013 16:33:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com (nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com [209.65.160.94]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4015D21F9E33 for <json@ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Jun 2013 16:33:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from unknown [144.160.20.145] (EHLO mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) by nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com(mxl_mta-6.15.0-1) over TLS secured channel with ESMTP id 0d9fcb15.0.236099.00-411.636343.nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com (envelope-from <tony@att.com>); Sat, 15 Jun 2013 23:33:37 +0000 (UTC)
X-MXL-Hash: 51bcf9d1304c7e21-27796d990ed882afdeb7e34d41185888bde88d72
Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r5FNXa9I005493 for <json@ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Jun 2013 19:33:36 -0400
Received: from alpi132.aldc.att.com (alpi132.aldc.att.com [130.8.217.2]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r5FNXWKR005473 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <json@ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Jun 2013 19:33:32 -0400
Received: from alpi153.aldc.att.com (alpi153.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by alpi132.aldc.att.com (RSA Interceptor) for <json@ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Jun 2013 23:33:20 GMT
Received: from aldc.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpi153.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r5FNXKON008400 for <json@ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Jun 2013 19:33:20 -0400
Received: from dns.maillennium.att.com (maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by alpi153.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r5FNXGDd008342 for <json@ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Jun 2013 19:33:18 -0400
Received: from [130.10.228.179] (vpn-130-10-228-179.vpn.sest.att.com[130.10.228.179]) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with ESMTP id <20130615233315gw100bhh6ve> (Authid: tony); Sat, 15 Jun 2013 23:33:16 +0000
X-Originating-IP: [130.10.228.179]
Message-ID: <51BCF9C0.1080408@att.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 19:33:20 -0400
From: Tony Hansen <tony@att.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
References: <6FC6B441-B74D-4B9F-B883-065C05890880@lindenbergsoftware.com> <0E2DB76C-3180-4D27-BD89-07C84A5D3599@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <0E2DB76C-3180-4D27-BD89-07C84A5D3599@vpnc.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-RSA-Inspected: yes
X-RSA-Classifications: public
X-Spam: [F=0.2000000000; CM=0.500; S=0.200(2010122901)]
X-MAIL-FROM: <tony@att.com>
X-SOURCE-IP: [144.160.20.145]
X-AnalysisOut: [v=2.0 cv=FZaAMuC6 c=1 sm=0 a=ZRNLZ4dFUbCvG8UMqPvVAA==:17 a]
X-AnalysisOut: [=Y4bMX7OWe-8A:10 a=bfzWQn4VrGAA:10 a=89nDKbIBrqAA:10 a=ofM]
X-AnalysisOut: [gfj31e3cA:10 a=BLceEmwcHowA:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=zQP7CpK]
X-AnalysisOut: [OAAAA:8 a=5G9hByssVJsA:10 a=yb3l31EbAAAA:8 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:]
X-AnalysisOut: [8 a=euPEhZ44BlnFORzG5AUA:9 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=JvmnxntETa4]
X-AnalysisOut: [A:10 a=xDJGhPxdmhgA:10]
Cc: Norbert Lindenberg <ietf@lindenbergsoftware.com>, json@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Json] Scope: Wire format or runtime format?
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 23:33:43 -0000

On 6/15/2013 11:27 AM, Paul Hoffman 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?

I'm with Paul -- it needs to continue to do both.

IMO, there's 1) the character-based definition of the JSON format, the
one defined by the ABNF, and 2) an expression of that for over-the-wire
use as an application/json entity. The bulk of this document should be
focused on #1, and I think #2 can then be a fairly small section.

    Tony Hansen