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

["Paul C. Bryan" <[e-mail]>]

Okay, I will amend the draft accordingly.

Paul

On Fri, 2012-03-02 at 12:57 +0900, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote:

> On 2012/03/02 6:45, Paul C. Bryan wrote:
> > On Thu, 2012-03-01 at 12:14 -0800, Mike Acar wrote:
> 
> >> That is, if the reference token equals the name of some value within the
> >> object, move to that value. 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: I believe
> >> German ö and oe are considered identical.
> >
> >
> > While we may consider ö and oe to be linguistically equivalent, I do no
> > believe they are considered lexicographically equivalent in a Unicode
> > string comparison. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. Would it help
> > to define the comparison as being lexicographical?
> 
> No. Lexicographical is usually used with respect to order, not 
> equivalence (see e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexicographical_order)
> 
> >> There's also the question of JSON documents with different encodings;
> >> UTF8 is the default, but UTF-16 and -32 with both endiannesses are also
> >> supported. Presumably this question will disappear in practice, since
> >> implementations will operate on deserialized data structures, not on
> >> JSON texts.
> >
> > Since they're logically the same underlying Unicode representations, I'm
> > not sure there's any issue to consider here.
> 
> The best way to spec this is to say that equivalence is checked 
> codepoint-by-codepoint. That solves both issues, because codepoints are 
> independent of UTF-8/UTF-16/UTF-32, simply the Unicode character numbers.
> 
> Regards,    Martin.