W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > November 2013

Re: [Json] Encoding detection (Was: Re: JSON: remove gap between Ecma-404 and IETF draft)

From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 11:39:24 -0500
To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@hsivonen.fi>
Cc: "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <jhildebr@cisco.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, Pete Cordell <petejson@codalogic.com>, JSON WG <json@ietf.org>, es-discuss <es-discuss@mozilla.org>
Message-ID: <20131122163924.GC16749@mercury.ccil.org>
Henri Sivonen scripsit:

> Even if no one or approximately no one (outside test cases) actually
> emits JSON in UTF-32?

How on earth would you know that?

> I think you should have to show an existing implementation with
> substantial deployment that in its substantially deployed
> configuration emits JSON in UTF-32 to have a justification for keeping
> UTF-32 in the spec.

As things now stand, there is zero support for removing anything from
4627bis.  If you want to argue for an interoperability warning like
the ones we already have, go ahead.  Given the evidence you've shown,
that's probably a good idea.  But the watchword of 4627bis (as opposed
to future I-JSON) is "No breaking changes.  Anywhere.  Ever."

> (I have to wonder what kind of theorizing was the cause of putting
> UTF-32 in the spec in the first place. I also have to wonder if the
> IETF JSON spec would have supported UTF-64 for completeness if someone
> had written an April 1st RFC for UTF-64.)

You'll have to ask Mr. Crockford.

-- 
Real FORTRAN programmers can program FORTRAN    John Cowan
in any language.  --Ed Post                     cowan@ccil.org
Received on Friday, 22 November 2013 16:39:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:57:00 UTC