IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Json] Proposal: the minimal edit

R S <sayrer@gmail.com> Tue, 25 June 2013 03:15 UTC

Return-Path: <sayrer@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14BCB21F9D07 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Jun 2013 20:15:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.532
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.532 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.067, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id haQZ-J4581Av for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Jun 2013 20:15:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-x22e.google.com (mail-wg0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::22e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E03621F9CEC for <json@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Jun 2013 20:15:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wg0-f46.google.com with SMTP id c11so8827443wgh.25 for <json@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Jun 2013 20:15:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=Ey5+lwSSe/uvT93teob9qvHJRdfkupAG+kDZZv2LfCE=; b=L90CChrjhc77QTq8/9XRfsiJlreKgyy6cwGvNkgTbeQ7EQBdsO2uwXgI1xQ35qP8OB hea5bJlHZKlJZY8DrHyrln8swfF3hzHFH29hlxpHaMV7tOPTUdI11n1CI3CJeYuCY5oC dZ2Mz0VVKFOzfxjgqe2KT06We3RXDKjCg0+/b407c60+DhvISGXuVWXoHN92kJuJrEg5 3g9bo+EXjy26mV7sV+1qaJZV8Sa+9bnTo909fH7o9RWTlAJMghtXxmuNdxNdyAaO4b9N KNqRUoGsuvjmtOfJtbZwaeMjzmvZWNF5KYVFUGfkxyTiYQD3C976NlaYdjps0v3zuEyW Qr7g==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.58.239 with SMTP id u15mr18471897wjq.87.1372130122254; Mon, 24 Jun 2013 20:15:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.44.138 with HTTP; Mon, 24 Jun 2013 20:15:22 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <09DF5600-BB4B-49F3-B6A9-35F04B77B131@lindenbergsoftware.com>
References: <CAChr6SyN4Z3Hh8OFGHkK+AJN0+S09wMfjeobZ51GjKNL+GhPsw@mail.gmail.com> <CAHBU6ivhoUM9cfUnc1YfnyDdQnWQ=Mj10cSoYn0qouMQ0F94XA@mail.gmail.com> <CAChr6SyQDjik_BTojXdw3G7_B=W5iZXksuM15VYwGJqr8WHdhw@mail.gmail.com> <CAChr6SwbFfR5UQuU2ceJhDeGAhv5Zy0dKA3szzO_KGfjA7fx5Q@mail.gmail.com> <B4858680-D319-4603-A1C3-D6A84195B300@vpnc.org> <CAHBU6ivUL6YvtMiajQwfftNgrRJk4dqiFs1yowoxfLi5wh2_hQ@mail.gmail.com> <20130624233521.GF19899@mercury.ccil.org> <3D442E5F-F9ED-47DB-9E1D-29ACA8588717@vpnc.org> <3BBF18FB-63DE-40DE-93B4-1F8343386872@lindenbergsoftware.com> <6B5B32EF-E4EA-461A-8C73-262375703A04@vpnc.org> <A11BEF17-E44D-44C7-B026-81EE86655801@lindenbergsoftware.com> <B715472E-E5D1-4766-867C-73C19A5000F4@vpnc.org> <09DF5600-BB4B-49F3-B6A9-35F04B77B131@lindenbergsoftware.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 20:15:22 -0700
Message-ID: <CAChr6SyAunX5cetmQUYebqKTps5041afK3YV87XGzL9i2r8kkw@mail.gmail.com>
From: R S <sayrer@gmail.com>
To: Norbert Lindenberg <ietf@lindenbergsoftware.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7ba97b9485d04704dff1f07d"
Cc: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, "json@ietf.org WG" <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] Proposal: the minimal edit
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" <json.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/json>, <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/json>
List-Post: <mailto:json@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json>, <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 03:15:25 -0000

On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 8:12 PM, Norbert Lindenberg <
ietf@lindenbergsoftware.com> wrote:

>
> Code point, assigned code point, reserved code point, surrogate code
> point, and noncharacter code point are terms that the Unicode standard
> defines and that should be used in the RFC.
>

That sounds like a possible follow-on proposal. The group is chartered to
reclassify RFC 4627 in place, and the existing Unicode terminology just
isn't a deal breaker. If it were, JSON interoperability would be much worse.

- Rob

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status