IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] Feedback on draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-00

Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> Thu, 01 March 2012 20:30 UTC

Return-Path: <tbray@textuality.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8291121E8164 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 12:30:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.068
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.068 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.091, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hTItpPl94Svj for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 12:30:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-tul01m020-f172.google.com (mail-tul01m020-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9320021E8032 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 12:30:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by obbeh20 with SMTP id eh20so1382053obb.31 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 01 Mar 2012 12:30:04 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of tbray@textuality.com designates 10.182.38.3 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.182.38.3;
Authentication-Results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of tbray@textuality.com designates 10.182.38.3 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=tbray@textuality.com
Received: from mr.google.com ([10.182.38.3]) by 10.182.38.3 with SMTP id c3mr2490743obk.42.1330633804180 (num_hops = 1); Thu, 01 Mar 2012 12:30:04 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.182.38.3 with SMTP id c3mr2173181obk.42.1330633804095; Thu, 01 Mar 2012 12:30:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.182.137.69 with HTTP; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 12:30:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Originating-IP: [76.10.185.204]
In-Reply-To: <4F4FD8A5.6010603@cloudmark.com>
References: <4F4FD8A5.6010603@cloudmark.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 12:30:04 -0800
Message-ID: <CAHBU6itAC2893_+ihbpU5Bd4x3=bierBSquYLLTq4Bv7+m6Cdw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
To: Mike Acar <macar@cloudmark.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmAaVD0t95ypp54GSESHidFDK26dhH9lIeT1sEx0UjZR6e2ihIanb5tNgp8dN0Zs+QXL0x5
Cc: IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Feedback on draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-00
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 20:30:05 -0000

On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 12:14 PM, Mike Acar <macar@cloudmark.com> wrote:

> However, the tokens and values are Unicode
> strings; I'm not an expert in Unicode, but my impression is that testing
> Unicode strings for equality is not as simple as comparing sequences of
> bytes. For example, there are linguistic considerations...

There are lots of considerations, the W3C once wrote a big huge
complicated spec on normalization forms.  I would say explicitly don’t
go there.  I could see the spec advising implementors to watch out for
this, but two strings are equal if they have the same number of
Unicode characters and the codepoints are positionwise equal;
otherwise not.  -T

v2.26.15 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status