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. Zing! > >> > 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. Best, -- Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater
