Difference between revisions of "Talk:Json usage in LSL"
(Asking how escaped characters in JSON strings will be rendered) |
Tali Rosca (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
I am concerned because the JSON format specifies at json.org that you can use escape codes like \u0000 to represent Unicode byte values in strings. But LSL has the ugly habit of censoring and altering strings so that a character with byte value of 0x0000 is removed from the string, and some functions like llSHA1String are essentially broken since they also convert UTF-16 integers between \u0128–\u0255 into UTF-8 byte values starting with %c2 (which therefore have a different integer value due to the addition of the extraneous byte). Is LSL also going to mangle JSON strings' byte values when it renders them into LSL strings? Won't this corrupt attempts at efficiently verifying the signatures of any incoming messages, and thwart attempts to generate proper signatures for some outgoing JSON-formatted requests? Or do the Lindens have plans to finally give us a proper suite of escape codes in LSL (or some other solution)? | I am concerned because the JSON format specifies at json.org that you can use escape codes like \u0000 to represent Unicode byte values in strings. But LSL has the ugly habit of censoring and altering strings so that a character with byte value of 0x0000 is removed from the string, and some functions like llSHA1String are essentially broken since they also convert UTF-16 integers between \u0128–\u0255 into UTF-8 byte values starting with %c2 (which therefore have a different integer value due to the addition of the extraneous byte). Is LSL also going to mangle JSON strings' byte values when it renders them into LSL strings? Won't this corrupt attempts at efficiently verifying the signatures of any incoming messages, and thwart attempts to generate proper signatures for some outgoing JSON-formatted requests? Or do the Lindens have plans to finally give us a proper suite of escape codes in LSL (or some other solution)? | ||
--[[User:Gistya Eusebio|Gistya Eusebio]] 09:41, 30 May 2013 (PDT) | --[[User:Gistya Eusebio|Gistya Eusebio]] 09:41, 30 May 2013 (PDT) | ||
Add to that the complete crash-and-burn if your string starts with a quote, generating invalid JSON. I really don't get why LL finds it advantageous to include magic switches which forces everybody to do workaround for normal use, and ensures that all future JSON implementations in SL must be hand-coded to keep backwards compatibility with the spec breaks currently implemented. | |||
[[User:Tali Rosca|Tali Rosca]] 15:50, 19 June 2013 (PDT) | |||
Revision as of 14:50, 19 June 2013
I am concerned because the JSON format specifies at json.org that you can use escape codes like \u0000 to represent Unicode byte values in strings. But LSL has the ugly habit of censoring and altering strings so that a character with byte value of 0x0000 is removed from the string, and some functions like llSHA1String are essentially broken since they also convert UTF-16 integers between \u0128–\u0255 into UTF-8 byte values starting with %c2 (which therefore have a different integer value due to the addition of the extraneous byte). Is LSL also going to mangle JSON strings' byte values when it renders them into LSL strings? Won't this corrupt attempts at efficiently verifying the signatures of any incoming messages, and thwart attempts to generate proper signatures for some outgoing JSON-formatted requests? Or do the Lindens have plans to finally give us a proper suite of escape codes in LSL (or some other solution)? --Gistya Eusebio 09:41, 30 May 2013 (PDT)
Add to that the complete crash-and-burn if your string starts with a quote, generating invalid JSON. I really don't get why LL finds it advantageous to include magic switches which forces everybody to do workaround for normal use, and ensures that all future JSON implementations in SL must be hand-coded to keep backwards compatibility with the spec breaks currently implemented. Tali Rosca 15:50, 19 June 2013 (PDT)