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

[Yuya Nishihara]

Matt Mackall wrote:
> 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.

It seems the right solution. I tested the patch with Chromium on Linux,
in cp932 and utf-8 encoding.
Could you try it?

Yuya,