IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Json] Proposal: the minimal edit

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Tue, 25 June 2013 12:58 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
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 3771A21E809F for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 05:58:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 MnQIQzgTr6CU for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 05:57:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54D2121F9C23 for <json@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 05:57:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de
Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r5PCvOLo025119; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 14:57:24 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from eduroam-pool7-0058.wlan.uni-bremen.de (eduroam-pool7-0058.wlan.uni-bremen.de [134.102.112.58]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9DBCB3797; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 14:57:24 +0200 (CEST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\))
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <20130625124823.GB26875@mercury.ccil.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 14:57:24 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E982A045-2827-4711-A497-7F3E7D4DE60D@tzi.org>
References: <20130625032014.GF14060@mercury.ccil.org> <ECAD5568-05F1-44C0-A8E1-6A38DAFAF6D4@vpnc.org> <C75D5BC5-6D5F-4CC0-8ACA-9717E7607DE4@tzi.org> <20130625124823.GB26875@mercury.ccil.org>
To: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508)
Cc: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, 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 12:58:03 -0000

On Jun 25, 2013, at 14:48, John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> wrote:

> That would fly if the RFC didn't REQUIRE parsers to "accept all texts
> that conform to the JSON grammar".  That means that
> 
> 	["X"]
> 
> where X is an unpaired surrogate code point, is acceptable.

The grammar is in terms of characters.
You can't ship an unpaired surrogate code point in Unicode (neither in UTF-8 nor in one of the UTF-16s and UTF-32s), so the grammar never gets to see them.

(Again, this is about spec language lawyering, not about reality.)

Grüße, Carsten

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