Talk:Json usage in LSL
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)
- I've been kicking and screaming about getting a robust JSON handling :-) 2594 got us some way, but we still have BUG-2736, which I consider so exceedingly ill-advised as to be a bug, despite the insistence that it's a really awesome feature. Tali Rosca 16:39, 21 June 2013 (PDT)
- The trailing quotation mark is the real nasty problem, not the leading one :D But yeah.. if they do add the capability to handle enquoted* text, how would that break anyone's scripts? Is anyone really relying on enquotation to invalidate their JSON strings on purpose? Besides when has breaking people's scripts stopped them from doing anything? I have tens of thousands of L$ worth of vehicles that are now worthless due to the Havok 4 update, but hey, life goes on. My copy of Microsoft Word 1.0 for Mac won't run on Mountain Lion either. I like backwards compatibility but we developers would be out of a job if software never had to be rewritten to work with the ever-evolving platforms that are out there :D
--Gistya Eusebio 07:58, 23 June 2013 (PDT)
* I know "enquoted" is not in the dictionary. However it is in the lexicon. :D
- The trailing quotation mark is the real nasty problem, not the leading one :D But yeah.. if they do add the capability to handle enquoted* text, how would that break anyone's scripts? Is anyone really relying on enquotation to invalidate their JSON strings on purpose? Besides when has breaking people's scripts stopped them from doing anything? I have tens of thousands of L$ worth of vehicles that are now worthless due to the Havok 4 update, but hey, life goes on. My copy of Microsoft Word 1.0 for Mac won't run on Mountain Lion either. I like backwards compatibility but we developers would be out of a job if software never had to be rewritten to work with the ever-evolving platforms that are out there :D
I feel the paragraph within "Specifying Json Elements" that begins with "When JSON is presented in human-readable form,..." should be rewritten to show that the JSON string in its entirety is actually the root node of the structure, signified by an empty list used as "specifiers". LepreKhaun Resident 15:23, 6 July 2013 (PDT)