[PATCH 0 of 1 stable] Re: [PATCH stable] templatefilters: make json filter handle multibyte characters correctly

[Matt Mackall]

On Tue, 2010-08-10 at 15:00 +0200, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 13:47, Patrick Mézard <pmezard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > The situation and use cases are really unclear to me. I thought at first the motivation for json in template filters came from Benjamin Smedberg (http://markmail.org/message/2zlxjatcqha4cdrs#query:json%20mercurial+page:1+mid:2zlxjatcqha4cdrs+state:results) as an exchange format, while annotate reveals it was introduced by you for the web graph view (and that Benjamin original need was similar).
> >
> > So, assuming browsers can deal with random byte strings encoded as Javascript literals, then it's fine by definition. But if json() is supposed to be used as an API/exchange format (and not only from (inline?) Javascript), I think we should enforce proper JSON format.
> >
> > I am reluctant to call JSON something which might not be.
> 
> Okay, so yeah, I haven't been aware of context either. I needed
> something to put the data in the HTML, and JSON seemed like a good
> fit. We chose to implement our own templatefilter rather than
> importing simplejson because our code is much smaller (doesn't include
> parser, doesn't have to deal with edge cases). I also thought (and
> still think) that it might be beneficial for extensions that want to
> exchange data (I know Mozilla has some JSON-based hgweb pages), but I
> don't have a solution for the present problem, I'm afraid.
> 
> Is the conclusion so far that using UTF-8 JSON breaks in a page that
> has a non-UTF-8 encoding?

The spec allows \uXXXX, so I think we should be able to send pure ASCII
JSON to avoid any possible encoding confusion.

-- 
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.