IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Json] Proposal: the minimal edit

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Tue, 25 June 2013 05:26 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
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 403F421F9F53 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Jun 2013 22:26:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.215
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.215 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.034, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 A3SkQNT+z+1r for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Jun 2013 22:25:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BB1B11E8108 for <json@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Jun 2013 22:25:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de
Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r5P5Pu69015262; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 07:25:56 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [192.168.217.105] (p54893C8A.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.137.60.138]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E2982331C; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 07:25:55 +0200 (CEST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\))
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <ECAD5568-05F1-44C0-A8E1-6A38DAFAF6D4@vpnc.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 07:25:55 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <C75D5BC5-6D5F-4CC0-8ACA-9717E7607DE4@tzi.org>
References: <20130625032014.GF14060@mercury.ccil.org> <ECAD5568-05F1-44C0-A8E1-6A38DAFAF6D4@vpnc.org>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508)
Cc: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>, json@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Json] Proposal: the minimal edit
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: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 05:26:05 -0000

On Jun 25, 2013, at 05:31, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.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.

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

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status