[Json] (no subject)

Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> Tue, 31 January 2017 03:58 UTC

Return-Path: <tbray@textuality.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 C75C2129D5E for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 19:58:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=textuality-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5Nj6g6cpWKgY for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 19:58:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk0-x22d.google.com (mail-qk0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D0109129D5D for <json@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 19:58:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id l126so19005159qkc.1 for <json@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 19:58:24 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=textuality-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=e41G4ZromQhJZSMHQUhrXalJtktJvHt1+VaR9x6FO/w=; b=hVJYWWX6ATg8R/ldGhRW2yAFzIxalQf8EOXfreB1pEJLsmMrXbOfFMCEox1IKqvKBW ziBA/Lzpcn0rwc+rQbQF4pL94Vu0tYdhm+nXiLOE2zCSvyjs+oeXkxyU5CF9KEprscbV dCeDXX7BKDzK5/j9ua0NcVfTDtrIzLlULzUH0XleYZS9lcKnYvwB7uhfbq+bAVOoANil eyeSl+4NEqsTuZppy0u7dyU+3nIsjW6thHRO7/xyuaDyZTRaiYWsf2h1KEHVYqEN06ri 9pFmT5f1UY8hRFmWQhW3e4OL0zzK94jJYoI4lT1epVWBXGuEypM1+2MaunFH1ew++Yb/ D8RQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=e41G4ZromQhJZSMHQUhrXalJtktJvHt1+VaR9x6FO/w=; b=DuQlgYfHc3iqcpDl7/6UQq8BXkeClzL43PFINtinz1Fqk6yEQnWa9cdnD0kzVNkt/C 2pSEh5pXi8Qj1f2o+o/g4W4KFLivK/B3K7qrzFpXbzpUEZHkcWdxYXfmGR4n684qLDqz b8H10PfRzzodXLdHhPTpleVVR7i+CE5Aautb8NHGO6kuKRH2a8yKWVcyOCNe+2ziTMBW A8xpES2Mb+w9NIDrLHpPG4d2wSHpW61gU9z0E41zD8X3WkwkpsbhSndBlkwuot3QoPrF yZDfGLw+2mSMR/G1YdiRW1Nqto8tyMlJwd/iQJkkH5vlssTbKAK57WmsPniQLvdW8HLG v+FQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXIa9100WR9e7slLGG+gtjdNIc3LqBPP6I/wmcwku54QnlSbMKbKBK6XkiOMzQ4UzsmKH7t+GwjQNDvsmg==
X-Received: by 10.55.142.135 with SMTP id q129mr24030124qkd.83.1485835103914; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 19:58:23 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.140.34.52 with HTTP; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 19:58:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Originating-IP: [24.86.134.32]
From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 19:58:03 -0800
Message-ID: <CAHBU6ivWgODWHLx-tCbN605he7nkmciuKEugPdyS1GVz2FyLYg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c085150906fff05475bf11f
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/9zPyukJm6FClb-u8pcAz0NbKYGA>
Subject: [Json] (no subject)
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 03:58:25 -0000

Just put finishing touches on the draft, and I surveyed back through the WG
and found Barry’s note:

​​
O
​​
n Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 1:29 AM, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> wrote:
​​

> ​​
> > "Byte order mark" in Section 8.1 needs a definition, for example by
> ​​
>
> > including the Unicode codepoint value.
>
​​
​Correct - a bit more work than you might think, since there's not a really
good canonical reference. So I just updated the text to read
“Implementations MUST NOT add a byte order mark (either U+FEFF or U+FFE) to
the beginning of​…”

Anyone have a better idea?
​​

> ​​
> > In Section 11: I think you meant to update references to point to this
> ​​
> > document, not an earlier RFC.
>

OK
​​

> >
> > Appendix A needs to be checked that it is correct. I think at least a
> couple
> > of things are out of date.
>

​Yep. Now it's just deltas since 7159.​

​> First mention of UTF-8, UTF-16 need normative references.

OK.  One reference (Unicode Section 3) will do for all three.