I cannot find the final resolution on the JSON list, but this was the list
of options that were given
**********
There are four proposals for establishing name equality:
0) Leave the current draft as-is, not discussing name equality
1) In Section 2.5 ("Strings"), immediately before the ABNF add:
For purpose of establishing name equality, comparisons MUST be conducted,
after all unescaping
is done, by comparing numeric character code points. There is to be no
modification of any
kind to the characters in names, including case-changing or
combining-form normalization.
For example, the following four names MUST be considered equivalent:
* "\u002F"
* "\u002f"
* "\/"
* "/"
2) In Section 2.5 ("Strings"), immediately before the ABNF add:
For purpose of establishing name equality, comparisons MUST be conducted,
after all unescaping
is done, by comparing numeric character code points. There MUST NOT be
any modification of any
kind to the characters in names, including change of case or change
between precomposed and
decomposed forms.
For example, the following four names MUST be considered equivalent:
* "\u002F"
* "\u002f"
* "\/"
* "/"
3) In Section 2.5 ("Strings"), immediately before the ABNF add:
For purpose of establishing name equality, implementations MUST first do
all unescaping and
then MUST compare numeric character code points. There is to be no
modification of any kind to
the characters in names, including case-changing or combining-form
normalization.
For example, the following four names MUST be considered equivalent:
* "\u002F"
* "\u002f"
* "\/"
* "/"
Please respond to this message with a list of proposals you could accept,
ordered from highest to lowest. Do not list proposals you cannot live with.
If you cannot accept any of the proposals, please respond and say why.
Based on the responses we receive, we will try to judge the consensus of the
WG.
-- The JSON WG co-chairs
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
> jose issue tracker
> Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 3:13 PM
> To: [email protected];
> [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [jose] #81: Section 5. String Comparison Rules
>
> #81: Section 5. String Comparison Rules
>
>
> Comment (by [email protected]):
>
> What is the updated JSON string comparison language that should be used?
>
> --
>
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
> Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-jose-json-web-
> [email protected] | [email protected]
> Type: defect | Status: new
> Priority: major | Milestone:
> Component: json-web- | Version:
> key | Resolution:
> Severity: - |
> Keywords: |
>
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
>
> Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/jose/trac/ticket/81#comment:1>
> jose <http://tools.ietf.org/jose/>
>
> _______________________________________________
> jose mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
_______________________________________________
jose mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
