support for non-ASCII in strings, was: signatures vs sf-date

On 02.12.2022 11:16, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> --------
> 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.

The key question here is: do we need to support strings containing human
language in HTTP fields?
does that, and says:

"The title and detail values MUST NOT be serialized in the Problem field
if they contain characters that are not allowed by String; see Section
3.3.3 of [STRUCTURED-FIELDS]. Practically, this has the effect of
limiting them to ASCII strings."

...and this has already caused pushback during LC (rightfully, I think).

> 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.

Well, that's up to the WG to decide.

>>>> 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 :-)

JSON, transferred over 7 bit transports, being broken because people got
escapes wrong?

Best regards, Julian

Received on Friday, 2 December 2022 10:32:37 UTC