On 17/03/13 10:33, Peter Cordell wrote: > On 13/03/2017 07:51, Martin J. Dürst wrote: >> My personal opinion is that we could try to fix this by changing the >> following: >> >>>>>> >> JSON text SHALL be encoded in UTF-8, UTF-16, or UTF-32 [UNICODE] >> (Section 3). The default encoding is UTF-8, and JSON texts that are >> encoded in UTF-8 are interoperable in the sense that they will be >> read successfully by the maximum number of implementations; there are >> many implementations that cannot successfully read texts in other >> encodings (such as UTF-16 and UTF-32). >>>>>> >> >> to something like the following: >> >>>>>> >> JSON text SHOULD be encoded in UTF-8 [UNICODE] >> (Section 3). JSON texts that are >> encoded in UTF-8 are interoperable in the sense that they will be >> read successfully by the maximum number of implementations. >> >> There are >> many implementations that cannot successfully read texts in other >> encodings (such as UTF-16 and UTF-32). JSON text MAY be encoded in >> UTF-16 or UTF-32 [UNICODE] (Section 3) if the sender is sure that >> the intended recipients can read them. >>>>>> > > My only thought is to perhaps reflect that JSON isn't only transmitted, > and JSON can be used for file based configuration etc, (even if this > isn't strictly IETFs concern). So perhaps s/sender/encoder/ in the last > sentence, plus a few other tweaks yielding something like: > > There are many implementations that cannot successfully read texts > in other encodings (such as UTF-16 and UTF-32 [UNICODE]). JSON > text MAY be encoded in other encodings if the encoder is sure that > the intended recipients can read them. > > Pete. /me doffs hat I like this change myself. /me dons hat As I recall, the table was removed mostly because the vast majority of implementations did not support any encoding other than UTF-8, and no one (that I recall) reported implementing the detection table. - m&m Matthew A. Miller < http://goo.gl/LM55L >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature