On Mon, 24 May 2010 14:29:58 -0500
Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 05/20/2010 02:22 PM, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> > On Thu, 20 May 2010 13:52:08 -0500
> > Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On 05/20/2010 01:47 PM, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Thu, 20 May 2010 11:55:00 -0500
> >>> A
On 05/20/2010 02:22 PM, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
On Thu, 20 May 2010 13:52:08 -0500
Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 05/20/2010 01:47 PM, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
On Thu, 20 May 2010 11:55:00 -0500
Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 05/20/2010 11:27 AM, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
O
On Thu, 20 May 2010 13:52:08 -0500
Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 05/20/2010 01:47 PM, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> > On Thu, 20 May 2010 11:55:00 -0500
> > Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On 05/20/2010 11:27 AM, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Thu, 20 May 2010 10:50:41 -0500
> >>> A
On 05/20/2010 01:47 PM, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
On Thu, 20 May 2010 11:55:00 -0500
Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 05/20/2010 11:27 AM, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
On Thu, 20 May 2010 10:50:41 -0500
Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 05/20/2010 10:16 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On
On Thu, 20 May 2010 11:55:00 -0500
Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 05/20/2010 11:27 AM, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> > On Thu, 20 May 2010 10:50:41 -0500
> > Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On 05/20/2010 10:16 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 05/20/2010 03:44 PM, Luiz Capitulino wrot
On 05/20/2010 11:27 AM, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
On Thu, 20 May 2010 10:50:41 -0500
Anthony Liguori 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 say
On Thu, 20 May 2010 10:54:42 -0500
Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 05/20/2010 10:35 AM, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> >> I meant that we're just accepting some invalid JSON and that's not a big
> >> deal.
> >>
> > It can become a big deal if clients rely on it and for some reason we
> > decide we
On Thu, 20 May 2010 10:50:41 -0500
Anthony Liguori 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 ra
On 05/20/2010 10:35 AM, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
I meant that we're just accepting some invalid JSON and that's not a big
deal.
It can become a big deal if clients rely on it and for some reason we
decide we should drop it. Ie. after QMP is declared stable such changes
won't be allowed.
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-10
That's a spec bug IM
On Thu, 20 May 2010 17:26:03 +0200
Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 05/20/2010 05:25 PM, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> > On Thu, 20 May 2010 17:16:01 +0200
> > Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >
> >> On 05/20/2010 03:44 PM, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> >>>I think there's another issue in the handling of strings.
> >>
On Thu, 20 May 2010 17:16:01 +0200
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
On 05/20/2010 05:25 PM, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
On Thu, 20 May 2010 17:16:01 +0200
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:
un
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-10
But we do:
[IN_DQ_STRING] = {
[1 ... 0xFF] = IN_DQ
14 matches
Mail list logo