Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
Advanced Search
Author
Subject
Message
Special notice only

18 results from messages in json

Advanced Search
  • 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@^$1, "Paul C. Bryan" wrote: > > > > > > I'm hoping someone can help explain the rationale behind a couple...
    Paul C. Bryan Jan 4, 2012
  • Thanks for the explanations. A follow-up question below... On Mon, 2012-01-02 at 13:12 +0000, douglascrockford wrote: > --- In json@^$1, "Paul C. 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...
    Paul C. Bryan Jan 2, 2012
  • On Sun, 2012-01-01 at 23:11 -0800, Tatu Saloranta wrote: > Hmmh? Where does 994 come from? Sorry, 996 octets. I think. Per RFC 2045 ยง2.8, 8bit data is "...represented as relatively short lines with 998 octets or less between CRLF line separation sequences..." Given that a JSON string must be encapsulated in quotation marks (2 octets), this seems to limit the number of octets that...
    Paul C. Bryan Jan 1, 2012
  • Fetching Sponsored Content...
  • 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. 2. Non-unique object members RFC 4627: "The...
    Paul C. Bryan Jan 1, 2012
  • On Mon, 2011-12-05 at 17:56 +0000, alexandre_morgaut wrote: > > The first draft of JSON Patch actually used JSON Path. Since JSON > Path > > was not standardized, I had to choose to try to standardize JSON > Path or > > do something else. For other reasons, we also needed a syntax that > would > > be very easy to express in a URI fragment identifier. JSON Schema > > developed a...
    Paul C. Bryan Dec 5, 2011
  • Thanks for the feedback. My comments inline: On Mon, 2011-12-05 at 09:15 +0000, alexandre_morgaut wrote: > > > Interesting proposal, it could be useful, but it still need some > work ;-) > > I'm not sure if it's best using pure path / url syntax to find the > target element or the JavaScript dot notation. As JSON means > JavaScript Object Notation, maybe JSON Patch could use the...
    Paul C. Bryan Dec 5, 2011
  • I quickly submitted another JSON Patch Internet-Draft, now posted here: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pbryan-json-patch-04 It now provides a usage example for each operation, fixes a few overt typographical errors and cleans up further ambiguous phrasing. Your review and feedback would be appreciated. Paul [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Paul C. Bryan Dec 4, 2011
  • I've submitted the latest JSON Patch Internet-Draft, posted here: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pbryan-json-patch-03 It includes new "move" and "test" operations, and addresses some phrasing issues that were raised. Your review and feedback will be appreciated. Paul [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Paul C. Bryan Dec 4, 2011
  • It supports any value type, including objects and arrays. Paul On Thu, 2011-12-01 at 09:05 -0500, Ted Elliott wrote: > > > Does the value type have to be a string, or does it support the other > types, e.g. true/false, numbers, objects, arrays, etc. I believe it > should > be any valid json. Otherwise it's of limited usefulness. Some > examples: > > original document: > { > "foo...
    Paul C. Bryan Dec 3, 2011
  • I've posted the third draft of the JSON Patch Internet-Draft to the IETF: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pbryan-json-patch-02 It should address all of the outstanding issues that have been raised to date. Your feedback is welcome. Paul [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Paul C. Bryan Oct 23, 2011