[eeps] Fourth draft of JSON proposal

David-Sarah Hopwood <>
Mon Aug 11 18:05:36 CEST 2008


Richard A. O'Keefe wrote:
> It really does not look as though there is any consensus
> for the representation of JSON "objects" as Erlang terms.
> I've switched to what seems to be the most useful and
> least bloated alternative; it may be that we need the
> {object,...} option I have described in the Rationale but
> not put in the Specification.

 > The JSON specification mentions auto-detection of the encoding
 > as a possibility; the ones that can be detected include
 > UTF-32-BE, UTF-32-LE, UTF-16-BE, UTF-16-LE, UTF-8, and
 > [UTF-EBCDIC].

UTF-EBCDIC seems to be mainly intended as an internal format for
systems based on EBCDIC that are migrating to Unicode, rather than
as a format for interoperable data. Applications on those systems
are likely to have support for producing UTF-8, so I don't think
that support for UTF-EBCDIC should be required.

-- 
David-Sarah Hopwood



More information about the eeps mailing list