Re: [Json] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8259 (7673)

["Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <[e-mail]>]

It would be reasonable to improve the wording in the RFC to make it align 
better with the wording in other places, i.e., use "and the control characters 
U+0000 through U+001F" instead of "and the control characters (U+0000 through 
U+001F)".  Whether this change is worth an errata is a separate issue.

peter


On 10/11/23 11:16, Tim Bray wrote:
> Oh, and as I didn’t say, while the erratum is reasonable, I think it’s a reject.
> 
> On Oct 11, 2023 at 8:14:24 AM, Tim Bray <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>> Well, this is a strange one.  All the specs for JSON have said the same 
>> thing, and the thing they’ve said is kind of stupid. The requested change is 
>> to add U+7F DEL to the list of characters that MUST be escaped.
>>
>> However, I created a document containing one field containing only a single 
>> U+7F, it is available at https://www.tbray.org/tmp/del.json 
>> <https://www.tbray.org/tmp/del.json>, and it seems to be legal JSON.  So, in 
>> fact, while DEL should have been included in the must-escapes, the world’s 
>> software has learned to live with it not being escaped.
>>
>> Note that this file does not display correctly.
>>
>>  ~ % curl https://www.tbray.org/tmp/del.json 
>> <https://www.tbray.org/tmp/del.json> | jsonlint
>>   % Total    % Received % Xferd  Average Speed   Time    Time     Time  Current
>>                                  Dload  Upload   Total   Spent    Left  Speed
>> 100    23  100    23    0     0    224      0 --:--:-- --:--:-- --:--:--   237
>> {
>>   "example": ""
>> }
>>
>> FWIW, those who care about such issues may be interested in 
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bray-unichars/ 
>> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bray-unichars/> currently under 
>> discussion in the art@ and i18ndir@ mailing lists.
>>
>>
>> On Oct 11, 2023 at 7:17:00 AM, Joe Hildebrand <[e-mail] 
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>> Suggested resolution: reject
>>>
>>> RFC 8259's ABNF is quite clear that these codepoints are allowed: 
>>> "unescaped = %x20-21 / %x23-5B / %x5D-10FFFF"
>>>
>>> ECMA-404 agrees: "the control characters U+0000 to U+001F".
>>>
>>> json.org <http://json.org>'s wording is awkward, but still clear: "any of 
>>> the Unicode code points except the 32 control codes and "double quote"
>>>
>>> Here is some JS to prove it got implemented this way:
>>>
>>> ```
>>> JSON.parse('"\x7f"')
>>> ```
>>>
>>> The approach in the errata might have been the correct one to have been 
>>> specified, but it wasn't.  Even if we had wanted to make this change, it 
>>> was far too late by the time RFC 4627 was written.
>>>
>>> —
>>> Joe Hildebrand
>>>
>>>> On Oct 11, 2023, at 12:56 AM, RFC Errata System <[e-mail] 
>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8259,
>>>> "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data Interchange Format".
>>>>
>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>> You may review the report below and at:
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7673 
>>>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7673>
>>>>
>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>> Type: Technical
>>>> Reported by: Zachary Collier (Zamicol) <[e-mail] 
>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>>
>>>> Section: 7
>>>>
>>>> Original Text
>>>> -------------
>>>> The representation of strings is similar to conventions used in the C family
>>>> of programming languages.  A string begins and ends with quotation marks. All
>>>> Unicode characters may be placed within the quotation marks, except for the
>>>> characters that MUST be escaped: quotation mark, reverse solidus, and the
>>>> control characters (U+0000 through U+001F).
>>>>
>>>> Corrected Text
>>>> --------------
>>>> The representation of strings is similar to conventions used in the C family
>>>> of programming languages.  A string begins and ends with quotation marks.  All
>>>> Unicode characters may be placed within the quotation marks, except for the
>>>> characters that MUST be escaped: quotation mark, reverse solidus, and the
>>>> control characters (U+0000 through U+001F, U+007F, and U+0080 through
>>>> U+009F).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Notes
>>>> -----
>>>> There are 33 7-bit control characters, but the JSON RFC only listed 32 by
>>>> omitting the inclusion of the last control character in the 7-bit ASCII range,
>>>> 'del.'  However, JSON is not limited to 7-bit ASCII; it is Unicode.  Unicode
>>>> encompasses 65 control characters from U+0080 to U+009F, totaling an 
>>>> additional
>>>> 32 characters.  The section that currently reads "U+0000 through U+001F" 
>>>> should
>>>> include these additional control characters reading as "U+0000 through U+001F,
>>>> U+007F, and U+0080 through U+009F"
>>>>
>>>> Instructions:
>>>> -------------
>>>> This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
>>>> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
>>>> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party
>>>> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.
>>>>
>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>> RFC8259 (draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-04)
>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>> Title               : The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data 
>>>> Interchange Format
>>>> Publication Date    : December 2017
>>>> Author(s)           : T. Bray, Ed.
>>>> Category            : INTERNET STANDARD
>>>> Source              : Javascript Object Notation Update
>>>> Area                : Applications and Real-Time
>>>> Stream              : IETF
>>>> Verifying Party     : IESG
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> json mailing list
>>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json 
>>>> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json>
>>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> json mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json