Thanks for sharing this link, Roger. Very important, useful,
and, frankly, disappointing. Standards are *hard*, and perhaps
the hardest aspect is the requirements, which must be decided and
stated clearly. Now I'm confused about the basic purpose of
JSON. I'd like to draw attention to the following passage from
the same (outstanding!) paper:
Beyond the specific cases we just went through, finding out if
a parser is RFC 7159 compliant or not is next to impossible
because of section
9 "Parsers":
A JSON parser MUST accept all texts that conform to the
JSON grammar. A JSON parser MAY accept non-JSON forms or
extensions.
To this point, I perfectly understand the RFC. All
grammatically correct inputs MUST be parsed, and parsers are
free to accept other contents as well.
An implementation may set limits on the size of texts
that it accepts. An implementation may set limits on the
maximum depth of nesting. An implementation may set limits
on the range and precision of numbers. An implementation may
set limits on the length and character contents of strings.
All these limitations sound reasonable (except maybe the one
about "character contents"), but contradict the "MUST" from the
previous sentence. RFC 2119
is crystal-clear about the meaning of "MUST":
MUST - This word, or the terms "REQUIRED" or "SHALL",
mean that the definition is an absolute requirement of the
specification.
*ouch*
On 11/02/2016 07:18 AM, Costello, Roger
L. wrote:
