[Json] Consensus call: establishing name equality

[Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]>]

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