Re: [Json] Unpaired surrogates in JSON strings

[John Cowan <[e-mail]>]

Tim Bray scripsit:

> In section 2.5 of 4627, a reasonable reading of the text clearly
> disallows unpaired surrogates, because the discussion is exclusively
> of characters, which surrogates aren’t; they are code points,
> but there are no characters that have those code points. From the
> introduction: “A string is a sequence of zero or more Unicode
> characters”. Case closed.

Unfortunately it isn't.

> A loose reading of the BNF probably allows naked surrogates if you
> ignore what the text says.

It's not about a loose reading.  Section 4 says "A JSON parser MUST
accept all texts that conform to the JSON grammar".  That's a flat
contradiction of the above.

> I think anyone who’s delivering those codepoints is already in
> violation of 4627, and I don’t think we should retroactively forgive
> those sins.

It's already been stated that ECMA can't swallow this change.

-- 
John Cowan    [e-mail]    http://ccil.org/~cowan
Objective consideration of contemporary phenomena compel the conclusion
that optimum or inadequate performance in the trend of competitive
activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity,
but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be
taken into account. --Ecclesiastes 9:11, Orwell/Brown version