Re: [Json] Proposal: the minimal edit

[R S <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 8:48 PM, John Cowan <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Paul Hoffman scripsit:
>
> > Hrm. Either you are focused only on the grammar section and not the
> > whole document, or you missed the Introduction to RFC 4627, which
> > say unequivocally:
> >
> >    A string is a sequence of zero or more Unicode characters [UNICODE].
>
> It's actually quite equivocal: it neither states that any Unicode character
> may appear in a string, nor that everything that appears in a string is
> a Unicode character.
>

I think that is a pretty strained interpretation.



>
> > That statement disagrees with ABNF in the grammar, so the RFC is
> > ambiguous. Some people in the WG believe that this sentence is right
> > and the ABNF is wrong; others believe the other.
>
> Since your proposal leaves the ambiguity intact, we don't know whether
> the meaning of the RFC as revised by your proposal is or is not the same
> as what ECMA-JSON prescribes.



The RFC is ambiguous and ECMA-JSON is not. That's the difference, and we
don't have to fix the RFC.

- Rob