Re: [Json] Proposal: the minimal edit

[Norbert Lindenberg <[e-mail]>]

On Jun 24, 2013, at 19:14 , Paul Hoffman wrote:

> <no hat>
> 
> On Jun 24, 2013, at 6:35 PM, Norbert Lindenberg <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Jun 24, 2013, at 17:28 , Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> 
>>>>> - ECMAScript implementations can generate and consume code points in JSON strings that are not
>>>>> Unicode characters.
>>>> 
>>>> Which definition of "Unicode character" are the three of you referring to?
>>> 
>>> Does it actually matter? This thread is about making minimal changes to the current spec. The current spec says "Unicode characters". The proposed addition to the spec indicates that, for some definition of "Unicode character" that is not in RFC 4627, ECMAScript can have strings with more than just Unicode characters.
>>> 
>>> Do you believe that proposed sentence is incorrect?
>> 
>> Without a definition of "Unicode character" we can't determine whether the sentence is correct or not.
> 
> I believe you can. If you look at the mailing list, you will see that some people interpret ECMAScript as allowing every code point in strings.

I'm one of these people.

> There are some code points that do not represent Unicode characters.

Absent an agreed-upon definition of "Unicode character", I can simply define the term to be a synonym of "code point", which renders the sentence incorrect.

Code point, assigned code point, reserved code point, surrogate code point, and noncharacter code point are terms that the Unicode standard defines and that should be used in the RFC.

Norbert