IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] WGLC review: draft-ietf-appsawg-json-patch-06

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Fri, 16 November 2012 18:52 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.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 C23CE21F8AED for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Nov 2012 10:52:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.45
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.45 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.149, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id v5hIUSaQPB+t for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Nov 2012 10:52:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 267F421F84CC for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Nov 2012 10:52:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [198.252.137.115] (helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1TZR1W-0004gC-9f; Fri, 16 Nov 2012 13:52:18 -0500
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 13:52:10 -0500
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>, apps-discuss@ietf.org
Message-ID: <75B32794FBAAC69101701DE0@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <20121116162715.GA90582@mx1.yitter.info>
References: <A07C75BB5BF01EA8C4019D03@caldav.corp.apple.com> <0E1A9A62-5777-4D49-AA67-9BF900293D0A@mnot.net> <6E4F9BC8BAC9530B87773C14@caldav.corp.apple.com> <20121116162715.GA90582@mx1.yitter.info>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] WGLC review: draft-ietf-appsawg-json-patch-06
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: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 18:52:19 -0000

--On Friday, November 16, 2012 11:27 -0500 Andrew Sullivan
<ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 10:55:48AM -0500, Cyrus Daboo wrote:
>> 
>> Advice from i18n "experts" on language would be good. My
>> guess is it might be sufficient to allow the patch-processing
>> entity to normalize the two strings being tested in some
>> consistent manner for comparison, rather than require "code
>> point" equality.
> 
> The scare quotes around experts are entirely appropriate in my
> case. But yes, normalization is probably a good idea.  What
> isn't clear to me is what kind of comparison you want.  If you
> use NFKC, you maximize matches, but the danger is that you'll
> match something you didn't want to match.
> 
> The thing to read is probably
> http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr15/.

And draft-iab-identifier-comparison

  john

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email