Subject: [Json] FYI: JSON discussion minutes (W3C TAG)

From: Larry Masinter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 08:58:01 -0800

I thought

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2013Nov/0030.html

made interesting reading.

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 18:09:09 +0100

> made interesting reading.

FWIW, I think Anne misunderstands the ABNF vs "7 bit" issue. We've used 
ABNF to specify things in terms of code points (instead of octets) lots 
of times.

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 19:48:02 +0100

>ABNF to specify things in terms of code points (instead of octets) lots 

Indeed. Terminals in ABNF grammars are integers, and since ABNF does not
support negation, you can infer the alphabet from the production rules.
It would not hurt to note that the alphabet is Unicode scalar values and
fix `%x5D-10FFFF` to exclude surrogates, of course, but no 7-bit issues
here.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[email-masked] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/

---

From: Anne van Kesteren <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 14:31:20 +0000

On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 5:09 PM, Julian Reschke <[email-masked]> wrote:
> FWIW, I think Anne misunderstands the ABNF vs "7 bit" issue. We've used ABNF
> to specify things in terms of code points (instead of octets) lots of times.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-06#section-1.1
does not define the alphabet used. I assumed ABNF defaulted to ASCII,
but it appears I might have skimmed that incorrectly during the
teleconference.

-- 
http://annevankesteren.nl/

---

From: "Martin J. Dürst" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2013 17:02:45 +0900

On 2013/11/07 23:31, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 5:09 PM, Julian Reschke<[email-masked]>  wrote:

Good catch! There's no assumption that ABNF defaults to ASCII, but there 
is also no assumption that ABNF defaults to anything else. See
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5234#section-2.4.

So this seems to be a hole in the current draft. Although the hole 
hasn't had lots of consequences so far (there's lots of context to help 
out), it seems advisable to fix it.

I herewith propose the following change to the second paragraph of 1.1:

OLD:

    The grammatical rules in this document are to be interpreted as
    described in [RFC5234].

NEW:

    The grammatical rules in this document are to be interpreted as
    described in [RFC5234].  Character numbers are taken from the
    Unicode, without implying any actual binary encoding.  Terminals
    in the ABNF are characters, not bytes.

(The additional text is based on the last part of the first paragraph of 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3987#section-2.2.)

For the process-inclined (read chairs and ADs): If this comment comes at 
a bad moment, please ignore it for the time being and consider it being 
made as a comment to the upcomming IETF last call.

Regards,   Martin.