- From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2022 10:16:57 +0000
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- cc: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
-------- 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