IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Mike Acar <macar@cloudmark.com> Fri, 02 March 2012 22:19 UTC

Return-Path: <macar@cloudmark.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 13FB321E8049 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Mar 2012 14:19:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 mcBbAtt0lmb4 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Mar 2012 14:19:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EB9521E8010 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Mar 2012 14:19:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.20.2.21] (172.20.2.21) by exch-htcas901.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.73) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Fri, 2 Mar 2012 14:19:22 -0800
Message-ID: <4F51476A.7080307@cloudmark.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2012 14:19:22 -0800
From: Mike Acar <macar@cloudmark.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64; rv:10.0) Gecko/20120129 Thunderbird/10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
References: <4F4FD8A5.6010603@cloudmark.com> <CAHBU6itAC2893_+ihbpU5Bd4x3=bierBSquYLLTq4Bv7+m6Cdw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHBU6itAC2893_+ihbpU5Bd4x3=bierBSquYLLTq4Bv7+m6Cdw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Originating-IP: [172.20.2.21]
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: Fri, 02 Mar 2012 22:19:23 -0000

On 03/01/2012 12:30 PM, Tim Bray wrote:
> 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 feared this was the case.

> 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.

This sounds good to me.

-- 
Mike Acar -                                 - macar at cloudmark dot com

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