IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Json] Complete section 3 proposal

"Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <jhildebr@cisco.com> Wed, 19 June 2013 14:48 UTC

Return-Path: <jhildebr@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B13321F9C4B for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 07:48:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 mYxwouXhYRfy for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 07:48:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4A9C21F9C57 for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 07:48:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1027; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1371653290; x=1372862890; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=/A0M6SHAMElqgsIoZ8RK0Qe/IvOuG/P+Tb8mQtc3aO4=; b=RkRE7Liq+z06mzNucpP9HoRiJsEX3nVWtlPuVPo60vJL2LtsGOaMBNvo tB1SUbnRsZosGZaZnaxFua/TPecRxXDGwHh9sdQ94RRvU65U7hXOyFgH+ VeI7xy7J5/RdVoo83xZAFFsjiLF0ObbOdwrM/ibMRJACj+jSHvd30Ut8i c=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AnEFADHEwVGtJXG9/2dsb2JhbABagwl6vxuBABZ0giMBAQEEOj8SAQgYChRCJQIEDgUIiAa7WY8RMQeDAGEDqQWDD4Io
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,896,1363132800"; d="scan'208";a="224900887"
Received: from rcdn-core2-2.cisco.com ([173.37.113.189]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 19 Jun 2013 14:47:48 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x05.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x05.cisco.com [173.36.12.79]) by rcdn-core2-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r5JElmR4009279 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 19 Jun 2013 14:47:48 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com ([169.254.15.56]) by xhc-aln-x05.cisco.com ([173.36.12.79]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 09:47:48 -0500
From: "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <jhildebr@cisco.com>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Thread-Topic: [Json] Complete section 3 proposal
Thread-Index: AQHObGQOe+q+3fshkkqz/+DniugiRZk8XgcAgACwWIA=
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 14:47:47 +0000
Message-ID: <A723FC6ECC552A4D8C8249D9E07425A70FC5A431@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <C9A3CF00-3B30-4DE4-95C4-9F3E6CA2DA86@vpnc.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.4.130416
x-originating-ip: [10.129.24.242]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <C9BBD28C87F2FF4682AF25FAED413C3D@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] Complete section 3 proposal
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" <json.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/json>, <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/json>
List-Post: <mailto:json@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json>, <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 14:48:16 -0000

On 6/18/13 4:16 PM, "Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote:

>On Jun 18, 2013, at 1:40 PM, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)
><jhildebr@cisco.com> wrote:
>
>>    Since the first code point of JSON text will always be an ASCII
>> character [RFC0020],
>
>You were so good with using "encoding schemes", then you fell into this.
>:-) While the reference to RFC 20 is cute, it actually doesn't help here.

I wasn't trying to be cute, I was trying to reduce the size of the diff
from 4627.  I'm fine with changing the proposed text to be more precise.

>A more direct statement would be:
>
>=====
>Because the first code point of a JSON text will always be a character in
>the range U+0022 to U+007B,
>=====

With the suggestion of tab, etc, needing to be included, my preference
would be to say U+0001 to U+007F, rather than calling out all of the
possibilities; this allows us to decouple the "what values can occur at
the top level" conversation from this one.

-- 
Joe Hildebrand

v2.30.2 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status