Re: [Json] String comparisons -- LAST CHANCE ON PROPOSALS

I prefer the second proposal (no surprise, I proposed it, and you can 
find the reasons for why I prefer it in the mail where I proposed it).
Of course, fixing key/keys to name/names to align terminology as pointed 
out by Stefan is great.

Regards,   Martin.

On 2013/06/12 2:44, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> Greetings again. The following thread has died off, with two proposals. If none of "leave the text in the draft as-is" or the following proposals would be acceptable to you, please propose specific text that would be acceptable.
>
> --Paul Hoffman
>
> Proposal 1
> ==========
> In Section 2.5. Strings, immediately before the ABNF add:
>
> For purpose of establishing key 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 keys, including case-changing or combining-form normalization.
>
> For example, the following four keys MUST be considered equivalent:
>
> * "\u002F"
> * "\u002f"
> * "\/"
> * "/"
>
> Proposal 2
> ==========
> In Section 2.5. Strings, immediately before the ABNF add:
>
> For purpose of establishing key 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 keys, including change of case or change between precomposed and decomposed forms.
>
> For example, the following four keys MUST be considered equivalent:
>
> * "\u002F"
> * "\u002f"
> * "\/"
> * "/"
>
> _______________________________________________
> json mailing list
> json@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>