couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Noah Slater <>
Subject Re: Character encodings and JSON RFC (spun off from COUCHDB-345)
Date Sun, 30 Aug 2009 05:42:23 GMT
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 01:27:18AM -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
> I've never seen a self contained JSON parser that is compliant with
> anything other than UTF-8. You could argue that Python's is, but it
> forces all input to it's internal Unicode representation AFAIK.

Yeah, well, software sucks. Init?

> > I vote for the first option.
> Patches welcome. :)

I prefer being a Unicode snob on the mailing lists, kthx.

> I thought you said on IRC that the RFC's detection scheme only works
> if the BOM is specified which is non mandatory. If it's not mandatory
> then it'd be a guess. Even if the major encodings can be determined
> I'd invent an encoding spec just to prove its still a guess.

The JSON RFC has a fool proof method that doesn't involve the BOM.

I quoted this earlier in the thread.

> > If it is explicit, and it is wrong, vomit in their face.
> FOUURRRROHHHSIXXXXX. Oh, pardon me. Late night last night.


> >> > What encodings would be supported?
> >>
> >> Patches welcome. UTF-8 currently kinda sort supported.
> >
> > UTF-8, UTF-16, and UTF-36
> UTF-8 obviously. For 16 and 32 we can obviously only accept BE
> variants since it was sent via HTTP.

I hope you didn't just use BE to mean British English.

> > I would prefer vomiting, but any kind of humiliation works for me.
> lol. More awesome quotes plzkthx.

I woke up in a ditch, once. True story.


Noah Slater,

View raw message