On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) <
jhildebr(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> wrote:
On 11/12/13 8:28 AM, "Paul Hoffman" <paul(_dot_)hoffman(_at_)vpnc(_dot_)org>
wrote:
[[ Adding the JSON WG to this thread ]]
On Nov 11, 2013, at 10:58 PM, Anne van Kesteren
<annevk(_at_)annevk(_dot_)nl> wrote:
Supporting encodings other than UTF-8 in new formats is not good.
Supporting UTF-32 is actively harmful as support for it has been
removed or is being removed from clients. You ought to actively
recommend against it.
In general ASCII incompatible encodings have very bad security
characteristics, the IETF would do well to steer away from them, just
like the W3C has.
Although I hate UTF-32 with the heat of a several moderately-sized stars
and completely agree that UTF-8 is the one true path, I don't think we can
completely remove UTF-32 from the bis draft. There may be existing
conformant JSON documents stored in UTF-32 that would be made unparseable
by this change.
Nothing the IETF does is going to make documents unparseable. All the IETF
can do is to tell people what the standard form of JSON is.
99.99 % of JSON code out there will reject UTF-32. Much of that code will
reject it in horrible, broken ways. So I don't see any problem at all in
telling people that such encoding is not valid JSON.
All that closing off this option does is to limit the number of test cases
that JSON code has to handle.
--
Website: http://hallambaker.com/