Subject: [Json] Proposed language for name uniqueness

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 23:35:03 -0400

At the interim meeting a couple weeks ago, I volunteered to provide
text on how to determine uniqueness (distinctness) of names.  Here's my
proposal:

   Names are distinct if they do not contain the same Unicode characters
   in the same order, after all two-character, six-character, and
   twelve-character escape sequences (see Section 2.5) that correspond to
   Unicode characters have been expanded to the corresponding character.
   The distinctness of names containing escape sequences that do not
   correspond to Unicode characters is undefined.

   Thus, the names "a" and "b" are distinct, whereas the names "j",
   "\u006a", and "\u006A" are not.  It is undefined whether "\ud800"
   and "\\ud800" are distinct or not.

-- 
You let them out again, Old Man Willow!                 John Cowan
What you be a-thinking of?  You should not be waking!   [email-masked]
Eat earth!  Dig deep!  Drink water!  Go to sleep!
Bombadil is talking.                                    http://ccil.org/~cowan

---

From: Stefan Drees <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2013 07:55:27 +0200

>     and "\\ud800" are distinct or not.

I like this "recipe" but suggest to use pairwise distinctness instead, 
thus simply starting the first paragraph this way should be sufficient:

Any two Names are distinct if they do not contain the same ...

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2013 02:59:30 -0400

Stefan Drees scripsit:

> I like this "recipe" but suggest to use pairwise distinctness
> instead, thus simply starting the first paragraph this way should be
> sufficient:
> 

However, one of the examples is about three names, not two.  Furthermore,
a set of names are distinct iff they are pairwise distinct, so I see
no benefit (but also no great harm) to adding "pairwise" elsewhere.

-- 
John Cowan     http://ccil.org/~cowan    [email-masked]
Monday we watch-a Firefly's house, but he no come out.  He wasn't home.
Tuesday we go to the ball game, but he fool us.  He no show up.  Wednesday he
go to the ball game, and we fool him.  We no show up.  Thursday was a
double-header.  Nobody show up.  Friday it rained all day.  There was no ball
game, so we stayed home and we listened to it on-a the radio.  --Chicolini

---

From: Tim Bray <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2013 09:39:23 -0700

Editorial issue.  I don’t think it’s possible for a human to be confused
between elements of a collection being “distinct” vs “pairwise distinct”,
but no biggie.  I smell better-than-rough consensus.

On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 11:59 PM, John Cowan <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> json mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>