On Thu, 20 May 2010 17:26:03 +0200
Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 05/20/2010 05:25 PM, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> > On Thu, 20 May 2010 17:16:01 +0200
> > Paolo Bonzini<pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 05/20/2010 03:44 PM, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> >>> I think there's another issue in the handling of strings.
> >>>
> >>> The spec says that valid unescaped chars are in the following range:
> >>>
> >>> unescaped = %x20-21 / %x23-5B / %x5D-10FFFF
> >>>
> >>> But we do:
> >>>
> >>> [IN_DQ_STRING] = {
> >>> [1 ... 0xFF] = IN_DQ_STRING,
> >>> ['\\'] = IN_DQ_STRING_ESCAPE,
> >>> ['"'] = IN_DONE_STRING,
> >>> },
> >>>
> >>> Shouldn't we cover 0x20 .. 0xFF instead?
> >>
> >> If it's the lexer, isn't just it being liberal in what it accepts?
> >
> > Yes, it's the lexer, but you meant that the fix should be in
> > somewhere else?
>
> I meant that we're just accepting some invalid JSON and that's not a big
> deal.
It can become a big deal if clients rely on it and for some reason we
decide we should drop it. Ie. after QMP is declared stable such changes
won't be allowed.
Yes, I know, the chances of someone relying on this kind of thing is
probably almost zero. At the same time I think we should be very
conservative if there's no good reason to do otherwise.
