Re: [Json] Inconsistency between RFC 8259 and RFC 5234

/me sighs in relief.

On Dec 12, 2017 4:04 PM, "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

> Nope, it's OK. 5234 section 2.3:
>
> """
>    Literal text strings are interpreted as a concatenated set of
>    printable characters.
>
>    NOTE:
>
>       ABNF strings are case insensitive and the character set for these
>       strings is US-ASCII.
>
>    Hence:
>
>          rulename = "abc"
>
>    and:
>
>          rulename = "aBc"
>
>    will match "abc", "Abc", "aBc", "abC", "ABc", "aBC", "AbC", and
>    "ABC".
>
>       To specify a rule that is case sensitive, specify the characters
>       individually.
>
>    For example:
>
>          rulename    =  %d97 %d98 %d99
>
>    or
>
>          rulename    =  %d97.98.99
>
>    will match only the string that comprises only the lowercase
>    characters, abc.
> """
>
>
>
> > On 13 Dec 2017, at 10:55 am, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> wrote:
> >
> > Ouch, I think he's right.
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: "Dale Schumacher" <dale.schumacher@gmail.com>
> > Date: Dec 12, 2017 12:42 PM
> > Subject: Inconsistency between RFC 8259 and RFC 5234
> > To: "Tim Bray" <tbray@textuality.com>
> > Cc: "Douglas Crockford" <douglas@crockford.com>
> >
> > I'm attempted to reach out to you directly, since
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8259 (the recommended feedback
> channel) currently returns "RFC 8259 does not exist".
> >
> > It appears that the JSON grammar makes use of two "Core" ABNF rules:
> >
> >          DIGIT          =  %x30-39
> >                                 ; 0-9
> >
> >          HEXDIG         =  DIGIT / "A" / "B" / "C" / "D" / "E" / "F"
> >
> >
> > However, JSON allows both upper and lower case in Unicode escapes within
> a string. In which case, the grammar for such escapes:
> >
> >       char = unescaped /
> >           escape (
> >               %x22 /          ; "    quotation mark  U+0022
> >               %x5C /          ; \    reverse solidus U+005C
> >               %x2F /          ; /    solidus         U+002F
> >               %x62 /          ; b    backspace       U+0008
> >               %x66 /          ; f    form feed       U+000C
> >               %x6E /          ; n    line feed       U+000A
> >               %x72 /          ; r    carriage return U+000D
> >               %x74 /          ; t    tab             U+0009
> >               %x75 4HEXDIG )  ; uXXXX                U+XXXX
> >
> >
> > is incorrect.
> >
> > If I may be permitted a recommendation, I would suggest that the JSON
> grammar _not_ use the "Core" ABNF rules. Instead it could provide local
> definitions such as:
> >
> >       digit0-9 = %x30-39         ; 0-9
> >
> >       hexdigit = digit0-9 / %x41-x46 / %x61-66
> >
> >
> > The use of "Core" ABNF rules doesn't seem to save much, in this case,
> and the indirection makes it easy to overlook this inconsistency.
> >
> > Thanks for your consideration,
> > Dale Schumacher
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > json mailing list
> > json@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
>
>