On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 7:36 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> writes: >> Here's another thought. Given that JSON is actually specified to consist >> of a string of Unicode characters, what will we deliver to the client >> where the client encoding is, say Latin1? Will it actually be a legal >> JSON byte stream? > > No, it won't. We will *not* be sending anything but latin1 in such a > situation, and I really couldn't care less what the JSON spec says about > it. Delivering wrongly-encoded data to a client is a good recipe for > all sorts of problems, since the client-side code is very unlikely to be > expecting that. A datatype doesn't get to make up its own mind whether > to obey those rules. Likewise, data on input had better match > client_encoding, because it's otherwise going to fail the encoding > checks long before a json datatype could have any say in the matter. > > While I've not read the spec, I wonder exactly what "consist of a string > of Unicode characters" should actually be taken to mean. Perhaps it > only means that all the characters must be members of the Unicode set, > not that the string can never be represented in any other encoding. > There's more than one Unicode encoding anyway...
See sections 2.5 and 3 of: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4627.txt?number=4627 ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
