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

[Tony Hansen <[e-mail]>]

On 6/15/2013 11:27 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On Jun 13, 2013, at 6:47 PM, Norbert Lindenberg <[e-mail]> 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