Re: [Json] Proposal: the minimal edit

[R S <[e-mail]>]

Incorporating updates from Paul and Tim:

I propose a new section, to appear after "Generators" and before "IANA
Considerations"

+ N. Differences from ECMAScript
+
+ ECMAScript implementations produce and consume primitive JSON values at
the
+ root level of JSON documents.
+
+ ECMAScript implementations generate and consume unpaired Unicode
surrogate code points in JSON documents.
+
+ When there are duplicate names within an object, ECMAScript parsers
overwrite the value corresponding to
+ such names with the value that appears last in the serialization.

Maybe this proposal should also deal with the errata for RFC 4627, since
they are said to be easy. That proposal would produce a document for -03 or
-04 that meets the requirements of the charter, and further proposals could
be evaluated with cost/benefit analysis in mind.

- Rob



On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 11:17 AM, R S <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Tim Bray <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> If we’re doing an ECMAdiff section... Since 4627 says “A string is a
>> sequence of zero or more Unicode characters [UNICODE]” by definition this
>> cannot include unpaired surrogates, since they’re not .
>>
>> So in Rob’s proposed section:
>>
>> ECMAScript implementations generate and consume unpaired Unicode
>> surrogate code points in JSON documents.
>>
>
> Yeah, that's fair. I'm not opposed to any text in that section that
> reflects reality and refrains from editorializing.
>
> It might be good to focus the WG on producing a document that can be said
> to meet the requirements in the charter, and postpone changes that aren't
> necessary for that. I think documenting these ECMAScript irritants is the
> only thing we're absolutely required to do.
>
> - Rob
>