Re: [Json] Consensus call: establishing name equality

#1 and #3 only differ at the editorial-nit level; I’m equally fine with
either.  -T

On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 9:42 AM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote:

> There are four proposals for establishing name equality:
>
> 0) Leave the current draft as-is, not discussing name equality
>
> 1) In Section 2.5 ("Strings"), immediately before the ABNF add:
>    For purpose of establishing name equality, comparisons MUST be
> conducted, after all unescaping
>    is done, by comparing numeric character code points. There is to be no
> modification of any
>    kind to the characters in names, including case-changing or
> combining-form normalization.
>    For example, the following four names MUST be considered equivalent:
>     * "\u002F"
>     * "\u002f"
>     * "\/"
>     * "/"
>
> 2) In Section 2.5 ("Strings"), immediately before the ABNF add:
>    For purpose of establishing name equality, comparisons MUST be
> conducted, after all unescaping
>    is done, by comparing numeric character code points. There MUST NOT be
> any modification of any
>    kind to the characters in names, including change of case or change
> between precomposed and
>    decomposed forms.
>    For example, the following four names MUST be considered equivalent:
>     * "\u002F"
>     * "\u002f"
>     * "\/"
>     * "/"
>
> 3) In Section 2.5 ("Strings"), immediately before the ABNF add:
>    For purpose of establishing name equality, implementations MUST first
> do all unescaping and
>    then MUST compare numeric character code points. There is to be no
> modification of any kind to
>    the characters in names, including case-changing or combining-form
> normalization.
>    For example, the following four names MUST be considered equivalent:
>     * "\u002F"
>     * "\u002f"
>     * "\/"
>     * "/"
>
> Please respond to this message with a list of proposals you could accept,
> ordered from highest to lowest. Do not list proposals you cannot live with.
> If you cannot accept any of the proposals, please respond and say why.
>
> Based on the responses we receive, we will try to judge the consensus of
> the WG.
>
> -- The JSON WG co-chairs
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> json mailing list
> json@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>