Difference between revisions of "Documentation"
From DJSON
| (4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<br/> | <br/> | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''[[Introduction à JSON]]'''<br/>'''[[Utilisation Json comme base de données]]''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | == JSON == | ||
* [[Draft Jenkins JMAP]] | * [[Draft Jenkins JMAP]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | * [[Draft Jenkins JMAPmail]] | ||
* http://rfc7159.net/rfc7159#rfc.section.1.2 JSON Specifications (from RFC 7159) | * http://rfc7159.net/rfc7159#rfc.section.1.2 JSON Specifications (from RFC 7159) | ||
| Line 10: | Line 17: | ||
:''JSON is the de facto standard when it comes to (un)serialising and exchanging data in web and mobile programming. But how well do you really know JSON? We'll read the specifications and write test cases together. We'll test common JSON libraries against our test cases. I'll show that JSON is not the easy, idealised format as many do believe. Indeed, I did not find two libraries that exhibit the very same behaviour. Moreover, I found that edge cases and maliciously crafted payloads can cause bugs, crashes and denial of services, mainly because JSON libraries rely on specifications that have evolved over time and that left many details loosely specified or not specified at all.'' | :''JSON is the de facto standard when it comes to (un)serialising and exchanging data in web and mobile programming. But how well do you really know JSON? We'll read the specifications and write test cases together. We'll test common JSON libraries against our test cases. I'll show that JSON is not the easy, idealised format as many do believe. Indeed, I did not find two libraries that exhibit the very same behaviour. Moreover, I found that edge cases and maliciously crafted payloads can cause bugs, crashes and denial of services, mainly because JSON libraries rely on specifications that have evolved over time and that left many details loosely specified or not specified at all.'' | ||
| − | * IETF WG Datatracker on '''[https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/jsonbis/documents/ JSONbis]'' | + | * IETF WG Datatracker on '''[https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/jsonbis/documents/ JSONbis]''' |
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ==YAML== | ||
| + | |||
| + | * [https://codebeautify.org/yaml-validator Validateur YAML] | ||
| + | * [[Introduction à YAML]] | ||
| + | |||
<br/> | <br/> | ||
Latest revision as of 14:29, 3 April 2018
Introduction à JSON
Utilisation Json comme base de données
JSON
- http://rfc7159.net/rfc7159#rfc.section.1.2 JSON Specifications (from RFC 7159)
- RFC 7159 - Référence IETF en vérification actuelle. http://rfc7159.net/rfc7159#rfc.section.1.2
- Parsing JSON Nicolas Seriot - Référence d'analyse pour le IETF/WG sur JSON.
- JSON is the de facto standard when it comes to (un)serialising and exchanging data in web and mobile programming. But how well do you really know JSON? We'll read the specifications and write test cases together. We'll test common JSON libraries against our test cases. I'll show that JSON is not the easy, idealised format as many do believe. Indeed, I did not find two libraries that exhibit the very same behaviour. Moreover, I found that edge cases and maliciously crafted payloads can cause bugs, crashes and denial of services, mainly because JSON libraries rely on specifications that have evolved over time and that left many details loosely specified or not specified at all.
- IETF WG Datatracker on JSONbis
YAML
