Re: Proposal: Add JSON support

On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 4:48 PM, Joseph Adams
<joeyadams3(dot)14159(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I'm wondering whether the internal representation of JSON should be
> plain JSON text, or some binary code that's easier to traverse and
> whatnot.  For the sake of code size, just keeping it in text is
> probably best.

+1 for text.

> Now my thoughts and opinions on the JSON parsing/unparsing itself:
>
> It should be built-in, rather than relying on an external library
> (like XML does).

Why? I'm not saying you aren't right, but you need to make an
argument rather than an assertion. This is a community, so no one is
entitled to decide anything unilaterally, and people want to be
convinced - including me.

> As far as character encodings, I'd rather keep that out of the JSON
> parsing/serializing code itself and assume UTF-8.  Wherever I'm wrong,
> I'll just throw encode/decode/validate operations at it.

I think you need to assume that the encoding will be the server
encoding, not UTF-8. Although others on this list are better
qualified to speak to that than I am.

...Robert