[erlang-questions] No JSON/MAPS interoperability in 17.0?

Ivan Uemlianin <>
Mon Mar 10 11:08:50 CET 2014


Apart from anything else there is the question of whether the json 
parser should be written in erlang or C.  There are good arguments, and 
use cases, for each.  Should the erlang standard library have two json 
parsers?  The status quo is fine.  It's not as if the preferred erlang 
json parsers are hard to find.

Ivan


On 10/03/2014 10:03, Thomas Lindgren wrote:
> "What about a JSON-encoded string containing "</script>", should that be
> avoided by Erlang’s builtin parser? What about "]]>"? What about the two
> characters that are accepted in JSON but not in JavaScript"
>
> To what extent are these issues problematic in an Erlang environment?
>
> My proposal: support an optional plugin API for sanitizing strings, and
> provide a standard plugin that detects these cases.
>
> Best,
> Thomas
>
>
> On Sunday, March 9, 2014 6:05 PM, Anthony Ramine <> wrote:
>
>     What about the utter lack of proper specifications around JSON? The
>     fact that you always have to think about where the JSON will be
>     injected?
>
>     What about a JSON-encoded string containing "</script>", should that
>     be avoided by Erlang’s builtin parser? What about "]]>"? What about
>     the two characters that are accepted in JSON but not in JavaScript?
>
>     Just because other languages include such a thing doesn’t mean
>     Erlang should too. If diversity is not a reason to reject it, other
>     languages providing it is not a reason to include it either.
>
>     --
>     Anthony Ramine
>
>     Le 9 mars 2014 à 15:56, liuyanghejerry <
>     <mailto:>> a écrit :
>
>      > 于 2014/3/8 22:01, Anthony Ramine 写道:
>      >> The problem is not about what is accepted, it’s about how one’s
>     (un)parser works. Sometimes you want a streaming-like API, sometimes
>     the whole tree, etc. The Postel principle is orthogonal here.
>      >>
>      >
>      > So, all languages with JSON module in their standard library
>     seems unbelievable? Because people need different parsers, so we
>     give them no parser? I don't think this is a reason for rejecting it.
>      >
>      > _______________________________________________
>      > erlang-questions mailing list
>      >  <mailto:>
>      > http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     erlang-questions mailing list
>      <mailto:>
>     http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> 
> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
>

-- 
============================================================
Ivan A. Uemlianin PhD
Llaisdy
Speech Technology Research and Development

                     
                      www.llaisdy.com
                          llaisdy.wordpress.com
               github.com/llaisdy
                      www.linkedin.com/in/ivanuemlianin

                         festina lente
============================================================


More information about the erlang-questions mailing list