Re: [Json] Proposal: the minimal edit

On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 10:25 PM, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:

> > A string is a sequence of zero or more Unicode characters [UNICODE].
> >
> > That statement disagrees with ABNF in the grammar, so the RFC is
> ambiguous.
>
> That statement *combines* with the ABNF.
> The ABNF limits the representations, the first limits the strings
> themselves.
>

I just can’t bring myself to see it that way.  Any reasonable person would
read this statement in the introduction and conclude that a string is, you
know, a sequence of Unicode characters.  The fact that the ABNF later on
contradicts this does not “supplement” the introduction, it’s just a
spec-drafting goof.  This is reflected in the empirical reality that in
JSON's sweet spot, chiefly in the kind of network protocols the IETF cares
about, JSON strings are de facto used to interchange sequences of Unicode
characters, and reasonable developers would regard a failure to do so, even
though blessed by the spec, as a bug.

 -T

>
> There is no ambiguity caused by having multiple restrictions in a
> specification.
>
> Similarly, {"a": 1, "a": 2} isn't ambiguously valid JSON or not JSON by
> being allowed by the ABNF.
> (Here, the other statement is a SHOULD, but that doesn't detract from my
> point.)
>
> Of course, the statement about strings being sequences of Unicode
> characters is in the introduction, so the level of normative detail it
> imposes can be discussed, in particular in the light of the fact that the
> specification isn't quite clear on Unicode terms in other places.  But the
> intent is very clear.
>
> Grüße, Carsten
>
> _______________________________________________
> json mailing list
> json@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>