Re: [Json] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8259 (7383)

[Rob Sayre <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, Mar 12, 2023 at 1:39 PM Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 2023-03-12, at 19:07, Tim Bray <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Heh, this goes back to RFC4627, dated July 2006.
>
> Much of ABNF was designed in 1977, when many computing environments only
> were starting to embrace lower-case (as usual, the future was already
> there, just not evenly distributed).
> In keeping with what was the normal way to cope at the time, ABNF literals
> are case-insensitive.


It's a little confusing, because RFC5234 says "To specify a rule that is
case sensitive, specify the characters individually." But that directive
seems to mean that case sensitive characters should be specified with one
of the numeric notations, not a single-character string.

https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-jsonpath-base-11.txt

On the subject of the unevenly distributed future, section 2.5.1 of that
document seems to contain an emoji character in the .txt file: "... such as
U+1F914 ("🤔", THINKING FACE) ...". Is that allowed now? I would look it up
if I knew where to look.

thanks,
Rob