Re: signatures vs sf-date

Julian Reschke writes:

> So, as author of SF, can you answer why SF doesn't recommend that
> encoding (instead of binary)?

Because we did not want SF to have /anything/ to do with the sump
(feel free to substitue "swamp" or "tar-pit" if you prefer) of
character encodings.

We even changed my original easter-egg example of sf-binary, in
order to stay totally clear of that subject - even down to that level.

I literally cannot imagine /anything/ we can write in SFbis about
character encoding, which will make the world a better place.

As you yourself just pointed out:  Even adding a non-normative
cross-reference to a well-established, on-point, standards track
RFC, would become controversial.

So no!

SFbis will only be the addition of sf-date and the editorial/structural
changes already announced, and provided Mark has time, we can have
it ready for WG-FC very soon.

> >> How many JSON files do you find regularly with broken strings? (Yes,
> >> when transferred over US-ASCII transport)
> >
> > Not nearly as many, because I dont receive several hundred JSON files each
> > day :-)
> Is "not nearly as many" maybe "0"?

No not even close to zero.  I regularly do see broken JSON, but far
from every day.   But as I said:  It is not valid to compare the
rates, in particular not when some of the broken JSON arrives via
email :-)

Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.

Received on Friday, 2 December 2022 10:17:15 UTC