Re: [Json] Proposal: the minimal edit

[John Cowan <[e-mail]>]

Paul Hoffman scripsit:

> Add Section 1.2, "Changes from RFC 4627"
> 
>    This section lists all changes between this document and the text in
>    RFC 4627.
> 
>    - Applied errata #607 from RFC 4627 to correctly align the artwork
>      for the definition of "object".
> 
>    - Applied errata #3607 from RFC 4627 by removing the security
>      consideration that begins "A JSON text can be safely passed"
>      and the JavaScript code that went with that consideration.
> 
>    - Added Section 1.3, "Differences from the JSON Definition in ECMAScript". 
> 
>    - Changed the [ECMA] and [UNICODE] references to be non-version-specific.

Given these changes, and *only* these changes, then I do not believe that

>    - ECMAScript implementations can generate and consume code points
>      in JSON strings that are not Unicode characters.

belongs in Section 1.3, for it is equally true of ECMA-JSON and RFC 4627
JSON.  Both of them allow code points that are not Unicode characters,
e.g. unassigned codepoints.  So this point is true but not relevant.

-- 
I Hope, Sir, that we are not                    John Cowan
mutually Un-friended by this                    [e-mail]
Difference which hath happened                  http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
betwixt us.     --Thomas Fuller, Appeal of Injured Innocence (1659)