Re: [Json] Consensus call: establishing name equality

Hmm, a bit too much MUSTard for my taste.  Only the first MUST in 1 is really needed.
So 1 > 3 > 2, but I don't like any of them:
a) The example does not illustrate the sentence preceding it (although it sounds as if it were intended to do so):  Swap the example and the "no mods" sentence.
(Again, b) we are comparing sequences of code points and not single code points, and c) the "there is to be no mod" sentence is not properly bound to the comparing, so there is infinite potential for misinterpretation of these sentences unless you already know what they are saying.)

Do we have consensus what we'll use the name equality for that we just defined?

Grüße, Carsten

On Jun 21, 2013, at 18:42, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote:

> 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> json mailing list
> json@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
> 