Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [json] Re: A couple of JSON questions

Expand Messages
  • Paul C. Bryan
    Thanks for the explanations. A follow-up question below... ... Why isn t such a limit implied by specifying 8bit in the IANA Recommendations? ... Paul
    Message 1 of 9 , Jan 2, 2012
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Thanks for the explanations. A follow-up question below...

      On Mon, 2012-01-02 at 13:12 +0000, douglascrockford wrote:

      > --- In json@yahoogroups.com, "Paul C. Bryan" <paul.bryan@...> wrote:
      > >
      > > I'm hoping someone can help explain the rationale behind a couple of
      > > points in the JSON specification:
      > >
      > > 1. 8bit content-transfer-encoding for UTF-8
      > >
      > > RFC 4627: "When JSON is written in UTF-8, JSON is 8bit compatible."
      > Why
      > > was 8bit selected rather than binary content-transfer-encoding? This
      > > limits the length of JSON strings to 994 octets.
      >
      > JSON does not impose such a limit.

      Why isn't such a limit implied by specifying "8bit" in the IANA
      Recommendations?

      > > 2. Non-unique object members
      > >
      > > RFC 4627: "The names within an object SHOULD be unique." Why was
      > SHOULD
      > > selected rather than MUST?
      >
      > This was so that ECMAScript's eval function could act as a JSON
      > parser. I think it should have been MUST.

      Paul
    • Paul C. Bryan
      Bump. Is specifying 8bit in the IANA recommendations not normative? Paul ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Message 2 of 9 , Jan 4, 2012
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Bump. Is specifying "8bit" in the IANA recommendations not normative?

        Paul

        On Mon, 2012-01-02 at 08:52 -0800, Paul C. Bryan wrote:

        >
        >
        > Thanks for the explanations. A follow-up question below...
        >
        > On Mon, 2012-01-02 at 13:12 +0000, douglascrockford wrote:
        >
        > > --- In json@yahoogroups.com, "Paul C. Bryan" <paul.bryan@...> wrote:
        > > >
        > > > I'm hoping someone can help explain the rationale behind a couple
        > of
        > > > points in the JSON specification:
        > > >
        > > > 1. 8bit content-transfer-encoding for UTF-8
        > > >
        > > > RFC 4627: "When JSON is written in UTF-8, JSON is 8bit
        > compatible."
        > > Why
        > > > was 8bit selected rather than binary content-transfer-encoding?
        > This
        > > > limits the length of JSON strings to 994 octets.
        > >
        > > JSON does not impose such a limit.
        >
        > Why isn't such a limit implied by specifying "8bit" in the IANA
        > Recommendations?
        >
        > > > 2. Non-unique object members
        > > >
        > > > RFC 4627: "The names within an object SHOULD be unique." Why was
        > > SHOULD
        > > > selected rather than MUST?
        > >
        > > This was so that ECMAScript's eval function could act as a JSON
        > > parser. I think it should have been MUST.
        >
        > Paul
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.