Incidentally, early (draft-pbryan-json-patch-*) drafts were aligned with JSON; later feedback when adopted by the IETF APPSAWG changed it to binary (starting in draft-ietf-appsawg-json-patch-00). The grounds for this was a consensus that the JSON draft was wrong to have made it 8bit for UTF-8.
Paul On Mon, 2012-12-17 at 14:25 +1100, Mark Nottingham wrote: > Both fixed in SVN; thanks for the review. > > > On 16/12/2012, at 6:32 PM, Roni Even <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on > > Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at > > <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > > > > > > > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you > > may receive. > > > > > > Document: draft-ietf-appsawg-json-patch-08 > > Reviewer: Roni Even > > Review Date:2012–12–16 > > IETF LC End Date: 2012–12–25 > > IESG Telechat date: 2013-1-10 > > > > Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication. > > > > > > Major issues: > > > > Minor issues: > > 1. The document has as the intended status “Informational” while the > > last call says that the intended status is proposed standard? > > > > > > Nits/editorial comments: > > > > • In the IANA section the “Encoding considerations: binary”. I noticed > > that RFC 4627 has a broader description: > > “Encoding considerations: 8bit if UTF-8; binary if UTF-16 or UTF-32 > > JSON may be represented using UTF-8, UTF-16, or UTF-32. When JSON is > > written in UTF-8, JSON is 8bit compatible. When JSON is written in UTF-16 > > or UTF-32, the binary content-transfer-encoding must be used.” > > > > > > > > -- > Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ > > >
