On Tuesday, October 8, 2013, Mark S. Miller wrote: > JSON must not change. If it refers to "the latest Unicode, whatever that > is", then it is potentially subject to disruption by (admittedly unlikely) > future changes to Unicode. >
I had a draft that said this, but Mark's arrived before I sent, so I'm giving the obnoxious +1 ;) Rick > > > > On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Mathias Bynens > <[email protected]<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', '[email protected]');> > > wrote: > >> On 8 Oct 2013, at 22:19, Rick Waldron >> <[email protected]<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', >> '[email protected]');>> >> wrote: >> > On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Mathias Bynens >> > <[email protected]<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', '[email protected]');>> >> wrote: >> > > As for Unicode, it explicitly refers to Unicode 6.2.0, even though >> version 6.3.0 was released last week. >> > >> > The document was written in July, which was before last week. >> >> No need to get snarky. >> >> Why not just refer to http://www.unicode.org/versions/latest/, i.e. the >> latest available Unicode version? The version number doesn’t really matter >> for JSON as all it cares about is the concept of “code points”, the range >> of which is fixed. >> >> Sorry for not raising this earlier, I must’ve missed the call for >> feedback in/before July. >> _______________________________________________ >> es-discuss mailing list >> [email protected] <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', >> '[email protected]');> >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >> > > > > -- > Cheers, > --MarkM >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
