On 2013/11/14 5:42, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 2013-11-13 21:38, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) 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.
+0.5
What I think we *could* do is put a stronger recommendation for UTF-8 in
section 8.1, rather than just saying it's the default.
+10
What about something like:
OLD
JSON text SHALL be encoded in Unicode. The default encoding is
UTF-8.
NEW
JSON text SHALL be encoded in Unicode. The default encoding is
UTF-8. The vast majority of JSON text is encoded in UTF-8, and
UTF-8 is the preferred encoding when creating JSON text. UTF-32
is not widely supported, and JSON texts encoded in UTF-32 are
very difficult to find if they exist at all.
Regards, Martin.