On Mon, 24 May 2010 14:29:58 -0500 Anthony Liguori <anth...@codemonkey.ws> wrote:
> On 05/20/2010 02:22 PM, Luiz Capitulino wrote: > > On Thu, 20 May 2010 13:52:08 -0500 > > Anthony Liguori<anth...@codemonkey.ws> wrote: > > > > > >> On 05/20/2010 01:47 PM, Luiz Capitulino wrote: > >> > >>> On Thu, 20 May 2010 11:55:00 -0500 > >>> Anthony Liguori<anth...@codemonkey.ws> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> On 05/20/2010 11:27 AM, Luiz Capitulino wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> On Thu, 20 May 2010 10:50:41 -0500 > >>>>> Anthony Liguori<anth...@codemonkey.ws> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> On 05/20/2010 10:16 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 05/20/2010 03:44 PM, Luiz Capitulino wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I think there's another issue in the handling of strings. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> The spec says that valid unescaped chars are in the following > >>>>>>>> range: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> unescaped = %x20-21 / %x23-5B / %x5D-10FFFF > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> That's a spec bug IMHO. Tab is %x09. Surely you can include tabs in > >>>>>> strings. Any parser that didn't accept that would be broken. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> Honestly, I had the impression this should be encoded as: %x5C > >>>>> %x74, but > >>>>> if you're right, wouldn't this be true for other sequences as well? > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> I don't think most reasonable clients are going to quote tabs as '\t'. > >>>> > >>>> > >>> That would be a bug, wouldn't it? > >>> > >>> > >> Tabs are valid in JavaScript strings and I don't think it's reasonable > >> to expect that a valid JavaScript string is not a valid JSON string. > >> > > IMO, we should do what the spec says and what bug free clients expect, > > what we consider reasonable or unreasonable is a different matter. > > > > How we encode strings is one thing, what we accept is something else. True. > Why shouldn't we be liberal in what we accept? It doesn't violate the > spec to accept more than it requires so why shouldn't we? For the reasons outlined by Avi, not sure how this serious this is though.
