Re: [Json] JSON: remove gap between Ecma-404 and IETF draft

John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> Thu, 14 November 2013 15:33 UTC

Return-Path: <cowan@ccil.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 D57A111E80F2; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 07:33:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.014
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.014 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.615, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_43=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 anNRR9LnGDMy; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 07:33:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from earth.ccil.org (earth.ccil.org [192.190.237.11]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7ABB11E8158; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 07:33:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cowan by earth.ccil.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <cowan@ccil.org>) id 1VgyvN-0006Ug-52; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 10:33:41 -0500
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 10:33:41 -0500
From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Message-ID: <20131114153341.GA2165@mercury.ccil.org>
References: <CEA95C60.2CF3C%jhildebr@cisco.com> <2E62DA50-F941-4A0E-A7B3-966A0DDE4C7A@wirfs-brock.com> <A8176E98-1CFB-4A3D-A8D7-EBBC759152AA@vpnc.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <A8176E98-1CFB-4A3D-A8D7-EBBC759152AA@vpnc.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Sender: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
Cc: Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen@wirfs-brock.com>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, JSON WG <json@ietf.org>, Joe Hildebrand Hildebrand <jhildebr@cisco.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>, es-discuss <es-discuss@mozilla.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] JSON: remove gap between Ecma-404 and IETF draft
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: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 15:33:56 -0000

Paul Hoffman scripsit:

> The question was specifically about ECMA-404, not ECMA-252. It would be
> great to hear from TC39 whether or not ECMA-404 allows or disallows it.

The point of issuing standards is so that all may use them, so there is
no need to ask anyone.  A quick examination of ECMA-404 makes it clear
that there are no references to BOMs, whether under that name, or "byte
order mark", or "U+FEFF".

But that is not determinative for our purposes, because of this statement
from the Unicode Standard (I cite section 16.8 of Unicode 6.2, but
substantially equivalent statements can be found back to Unicode 3.2):

    Systems that use the byte order mark must recognize when an
    initial U+FEFF signals the byte order. In those cases, it is
    not part of the textual content and should be removed before
    processing, because otherwise it may be mistaken for a legitimate
    zero width no-break space.

Per contra, ECMA-404 refers only to text(ual content).  The BOM is
meaningful when transforming byte sequences into code point sequences,
but ECMA-404 deals in the latter only.  So it is the furthest thing
from surprising that it makes no mention of BOMs, and has nothing to
say about their use outside text.

-- 
Overhead, without any fuss, the stars were going out.
        --Arthur C. Clarke, "The Nine Billion Names of God"
                John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>