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

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

Expand Messages
  • Paul C. Bryan
    Bump. Is specifying 8bit in the IANA recommendations not normative? Paul ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Message 1 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.