- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 13:35:00 +0100
- To: "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, JSON WG <json@ietf.org>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, www-tag@w3.org, es-discuss <es-discuss@mozilla.org>
* Martin J. Dürst wrote:
>As for what to say about whether to accept BOMs or not, I'd really want
>to know what the various existing parsers do. If they accept BOMs, then
>we can say they should accept BOMs. If they don't accept BOMs, then we
>should say that they don't.
Unicode signatures are not useful for application/json resources and are
likely to break exisiting and future code, it is not at all uncommon to
construct JSON text by concatenating, say, string literals with some web
service response without passing the data through a JSON parser. And as
RFC 4627 makes no mention of them, there is little reason to think that
implementations tolerate them.
Perl's JSON module gives me
malformed JSON string, neither array, object, number, string
or atom, at character offset 0 (before "\x{ef}\x{bb}\x{bf}[]")
Python's json module gives me
ValueError: No JSON object could be decoded
Go's "encoding/json" module gives me
invalid character 'ï' looking for beginning of value
http://shadowregistry.org/js/misc/#t2ea25a961255bb1202da9497a1942e09 is
another example of what kinds of bugs await us if we were to specify the
use of Unicode signatures for JSON, essentially
new DOMParser().parseFromString("\uBBEF\u3CBF\u7979\u3E2F","text/xml")
Now U+BBEF U+3CBF U+7979 U+3E2F is not an XML document but Firefox and
Internet Explorer treat it as if it were equivalent to "<yy/>".
--
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/
Received on Monday, 18 November 2013 12:35:32 UTC