On 2017-03-08 08:39, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 2017-03-08 02:48, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
I'm also concerned about the freewheeling use of Unicode. While
this document does discuss the potential encodings and lists UTF-8
as the default (and most interoperable), I think it would benefit
from a stricter warning that parties using JSON for communication
must have some out-of-band way to agree on what encoding is to be
used. I would expect that this is usually going to be done by the
protocol using JSON, but could see a place for the actual
communicating peers to have out-of-band knowledge. (An application
having to guess what encoding is being used based on heuristics is a
recipe for disaster.)
...
AFAIU, there is no need for out-of-band knowledge (which would be very
bad). Recipients are supposed to inspect the payload and detect which of
the three encoding was used.
That said, we probably should make that clearer.
...
I'm also rather curious about the claim that no "charset" parameter
is needed as it "really has no effect on compliant recipients". Why
is this not a good way to communicate whether UTF-8, UTF-16, or
UTF-32 is in use for a given text?
...
It might have been, but that's now how it is implemented.
s/now/not/