Re: [Json] Proposal: the minimal edit

[Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]>]

<no hat>

On Jun 24, 2013, at 4:58 PM, Norbert Lindenberg <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 
> On Jun 24, 2013, at 16:42 , Paul Hoffman wrote:
> 
>> On Jun 24, 2013, at 4:35 PM, John Cowan <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>>> Tim Bray scripsit:
>>> 
>>>> In general I’d support this, with one nit: s/that are not Unicode
>>>> characters/that can never be Unicode characters/ (just to make it clear
>>>> we’re not talking about unassigned code points, which don't seem to
>>>> distress anyone).
>>> 
>>> Well, that excludes not only surrogate code points, which are the really
>>> dangerous ones (because they have no standard representation) but non-character
>>> code points as well, which shouldn't be interchanged but aren't actually
>>> dangerous.  I don't know if you mean to do that or not.
>> 
>> I'm not sure what you mean by "exclude". The sentence Tim was referring to is about inclusion:
>> 
>> - ECMAScript implementations can generate and consume code points in JSON strings that are not
>>   Unicode characters.
> 
> Which definition of "Unicode character" are the three of you referring to?

Does it actually matter? This thread is about making minimal changes to the current spec. The current spec says "Unicode characters". The proposed addition to the spec indicates that, for some definition of "Unicode character" that is not in RFC 4627, ECMAScript can have strings with more than just Unicode characters.

Do you believe that proposed sentence is incorrect?

--Paul Hoffman