Re: [Json] Comments on proposed charter for JSON

Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> Fri, 01 March 2013 19:15 UTC

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
To: "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <jhildebr@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2013 20:15:11 +0100
Message-ID: <hms1j89m6oorgjv7j5d6cnm9bkvmadk94s@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
References: <4F511CA8-1FC1-46AF-BC22-C64F2C63C052@vpnc.org> <A723FC6ECC552A4D8C8249D9E07425A70F8AF2FE@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <A723FC6ECC552A4D8C8249D9E07425A70F8AF2FE@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] Comments on proposed charter for JSON
Precedence: list

* Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) wrote:
>(individual)
>I'm fine with the text as it currently sits.
>
>(chair)
>Does the current text give anyone heartburn?  I'll start another thread
>mid-next week to make sure.

The way I look at this, there is a very small subset that works reliably
(only UTF-8, no Unicode signature, all keys are unique, the top level is
either array or object, and probably some other restrictions) but beyond
that JSON is a highly fragmented and in need of standardisation, and the
current proposal does not really convey that state of affairs and does
really say what the Working Group would be expected to do about it.

To illustrate, http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-XMLHttpRequest-20121206/ has
a JSON loading feature that treats all JSON documents as UTF-8 encoded,
even RFC 4627-compliant UTF-16-encoded ones, requires to ignore the
UTF-8 BOM which normally breaks RFC 4627-compliant decoders, it allows
strings and other things at the top-level that cannot be used in RFC
4627-compliant JSON, it requires to recover from UTF-8 errors in a
certain way, ...

If I want to implement a JSON decoder that behaves like XMLHttpRequest,
then RFC 4627 cannot be used as a reference in any notable way, and if
the Working Group makes all the changes needed to do exactly what the 
XMLHttpRequest feature does, then that's not "minimal" and does "break
compatibility" and goes well beyond simply putting JSON on the standards
track, as far as I am concerned. And if it doesn't do this and XHR isn't
changed (and XMLHttpRequest is just an example, all sorts of libraries
and other things have similar inconsistencies) then we'll have W3C-JSON
and IETF-JSON and more, outside the common subset noted above.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/

Re: [Json] Comments on proposed charter for JSON Paul Hoffman
[Json] Comments on proposed charter for JSON SM
Re: [Json] Comments on proposed charter for JSON Barry Leiba
Re: [Json] Comments on proposed charter for JSON Barry Leiba
Re: [Json] Comments on proposed charter for JSON Peter Saint-Andre
Re: [Json] Comments on proposed charter for JSON Barry Leiba
Re: [Json] Comments on proposed charter for JSON Matt Miller (mamille2)
Re: [Json] Comments on proposed charter for JSON SM
Re: [Json] Comments on proposed charter for JSON Paul Hoffman
Re: [Json] Comments on proposed charter for JSON Peter Saint-Andre
Re: [Json] Comments on proposed charter for JSON Matt Miller (mamille2)
Re: [Json] Comments on proposed charter for JSON Markus Lanthaler
Re: [Json] Comments on proposed charter for JSON Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)
Re: [Json] Comments on proposed charter for JSON Bjoern Hoehrmann
Re: [Json] Comments on proposed charter for JSON Robert Sayre
Re: [Json] Comments on proposed charter for JSON Paul Hoffman
Re: [Json] Comments on proposed charter for JSON Bjoern Hoehrmann
Re: [Json] Comments on proposed charter for JSON Paul Hoffman
Re: [Json] Comments on proposed charter for JSON Bjoern Hoehrmann
Re: [Json] Comments on proposed charter for JSON Paul Hoffman