Re: [Json] Proposal: the minimal edit

[Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]>]

<no hat>

On Jun 24, 2013, at 6:19 PM, John Cowan <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Paul Hoffman scripsit:
> 
>> I'm not sure what you mean by "exclude". The sentence Tim was referring
>> to is about inclusion:
>> 
>>  - ECMAScript implementations can generate and consume code points
>>    in JSON strings that are not Unicode characters.
> 
> There is no point in putting this item into a list of differences
> unless it is not true of RFC-JSON.

Agree.

>  If this language is to be added, it
> follows that RFC-JSON excludes certain code points that are not Unicode
> characters.  

There are many people in the WG who believe that is the case.

> But exactly which code points?  

Why is that question important? As long as there is a difference, why does there have to be a specific list for this purpose?

> As worded, presumably
> all of them: the surrogate code points, the non-character code points
> (a term of art in Unicode; it does not mean "code points that are not
> characters", but refers to a specific list of 66 code points), and the
> unassigned (as of some particular Unicode version) code points.

Errr, why make that presumption? The sentence stands on its own, without presumptions. Rob's suggestion to make this all simple is the basis for this thread.

> Tim's proposed revision replaced the last five words with "that can never
> be Unicode characters", thus excluding from RFC-JSON only the surrogate
> code points and the non-character code points, but not the unassigned
> code points.  As it turns out, this is indeed what he meant to say.

The sentence above is more general. If it is still true, I thought it would probably be supported by more people who wanted simplicity in the -bis document.

> My preference would be to exclude only the surrogates, not the
> non-characters, which is yet a third position.  My suggested wording
> would be simply "that are surrogates".

Why are you wanting to exclude anything? This section is a list of differences. Do you believe you know exactly which non-characters are allowed by ECMAScript? I ask because there were differing opinions earlier.

--Paul Hoffman