Re: [Json] FYI ECMA, W3C, IETF coordination on JSON

Yes indeed.  Yes indeed.   The double quote may not appear within quotation 
marks, by a two-to-one vote.

peter

On 10/08/2013 11:32 AM, Tim Bray wrote:
> On the other hand, the opening paragraph of section 9 makes sure that you’re 
> really clear about which characters may and may not be placed between 
> quotation marks.
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider 
> <pfpschneider@gmail.com <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     The paragraph on numbers, see below, seems rather dangerous, as well as
>     being incorrect.  The paragraph on strings, also below, ignores all the
>     problems with escaped code units that do not represent a Unicode code point.
>
>     peter
>
>
>     On 10/08/2013 09:42 AM, John Cowan wrote:
>
>         Allen Wirfs-Brock scripsit:
>
>             The draft was approved by a letter ballot of the Ecma General
>             Assembly.  It is now available as Ecma-404:
>
>         Almost all of it is derived directly from the RFC, with some editorial
>         cleanup.  The Introduction, however, is new.  I reproduce it here in
>         case
>         the Editor wishes to mine it for anything:
>         [...]
>
>
>              JSON is agnostic about numbers. In any programming language,
>              there can be a variety of number types of various capacities
>              and complements, fixed or floating, binary or decimal. That
>              can make interchange between different programming languages
>              difficult. JSON instead offers only the representation of numbers
>              that humans use: a sequence of digits. All programming languages
>              know how to make sense of digit sequences even if they disagree
>              on internal representations. That is enough to allow interchange.
>
>              JSON text is a sequence of Unicode code points. JSON also depends
>              on Unicode in the hex numbers used in the \u escapement [sic]
>              notation.
>         [...]
>
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 8 October 2013 18:59:04 UTC