- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 11:58:28 -0700
- To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
- CC: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>, Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen@wirfs-brock.com>, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>, JSON WG <json@ietf.org>
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