Fixing 754 in 3.0?

> Hi
>
> As you can probably tell from the mails I've been fixing some bugs
> today (Workers' Day). One of the more interesting ones was Issue 754
> [1]. The underlying problem is that in 3.0 the JSON support builds on
> top of the JavaScript support. So the JavaScript string escaping is
> used for escaping JSON. The JavaScript string escaping make use of
> some "optimisations" like \0 zero for or \xXX for unnamed ASCI control
> characters. These are not valid in JSON, JSON wants \uXXXX. If we want
> to fix this in 3.0 we have to change the way string escaping is done
> for JavaScript and always use \uXXXX for unnamed ASCI control
> characters (which is still valid JavaScript). How do people feel about
> this?
>
> (in 3.1 this was easy to fix because JSON and JavaScript are separate)
>
>  [1] http://code.google.com/p/seaside/issues/detail?id=754
>
> Cheers
> Philippe
> _______________________________________________
> seaside-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/seaside-dev

> I'd say go for the easy fix and don't worry about "optimisations"...?
>
> On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 8:22 PM, Philippe Marschall
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> As you can probably tell from the mails I've been fixing some bugs
>> today (Workers' Day). One of the more interesting ones was Issue 754
>> [1]. The underlying problem is that in 3.0 the JSON support builds on
>> top of the JavaScript support. So the JavaScript string escaping is
>> used for escaping JSON. The JavaScript string escaping make use of
>> some "optimisations" like \0 zero for or \xXX for unnamed ASCI control
>> characters. These are not valid in JSON, JSON wants \uXXXX. If we want
>> to fix this in 3.0 we have to change the way string escaping is done
>> for JavaScript and always use \uXXXX for unnamed ASCI control
>> characters (which is still valid JavaScript). How do people feel about
>> this?
>>
>> (in 3.1 this was easy to fix because JSON and JavaScript are separate)
>>
>> [1] http://code.google.com/p/seaside/issues/detail?id=754
>>
>> Cheers
>> Philippe
>> _______________________________________________
>> seaside-dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/seaside-dev
> _______________________________________________
> seaside-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/seaside-dev

> Kris (who reported the issue) made a change in our code base to tackle the issue.
>
> He's out on a holiday until monday and I cannot look at it for now, but I attached his changes in a .cs file to the issue.
>
> If it's good, it can be integrated.
>
> cheers
> Johan
>
>
> On 02 May 2013, at 01:48, Julian Fitzell <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> I'd say go for the easy fix and don't worry about "optimisations"...?
>>
>> On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 8:22 PM, Philippe Marschall
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> As you can probably tell from the mails I've been fixing some bugs
>>> today (Workers' Day). One of the more interesting ones was Issue 754
>>> [1]. The underlying problem is that in 3.0 the JSON support builds on
>>> top of the JavaScript support. So the JavaScript string escaping is
>>> used for escaping JSON. The JavaScript string escaping make use of
>>> some "optimisations" like \0 zero for or \xXX for unnamed ASCI control
>>> characters. These are not valid in JSON, JSON wants \uXXXX. If we want
>>> to fix this in 3.0 we have to change the way string escaping is done
>>> for JavaScript and always use \uXXXX for unnamed ASCI control
>>> characters (which is still valid JavaScript). How do people feel about
>>> this?
>>>
>>> (in 3.1 this was easy to fix because JSON and JavaScript are separate)
>>>
>>> [1] http://code.google.com/p/seaside/issues/detail?id=754
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Philippe
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> seaside-dev mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/seaside-dev
>> _______________________________________________
>> seaside-dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/seaside-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> seaside-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/seaside-dev