On 11/13/13 2:27 PM, "Paul Hoffman" <paul(_dot_)hoffman(_at_)vpnc(_dot_)org>
wrote:
<no hat>
On Nov 13, 2013, at 12:24 PM, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)
<jhildebr(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> wrote:
We would also need to change section 8.1 according to the mechanism that
was previously proposed:
00 00 00 xx UTF-32BE
00 xx ?? xx UTF-16BE
xx 00 00 00 UTF-32LE
xx 00 xx ?? UTF-16LE
xx xx ?? ?? UTF-8
in order to account for strings at the top level whose first character
has
a codepoint greater than 127.
A string at the top level of a JSON text still needs to start with an
ASCII " character, so the logic is still fine, I believe.
Without top level strings, the first *two* characters of any JSON text are
always ASCII. This:
"?" (that's U+0022 U+0100 U+0022)
would encode the first two characters in UTF-16BE as:
00 22 01 00
8.1 currently says:
00 00 00 xx UTF-32BE
00 xx 00 xx UTF-16BE
xx 00 00 00 UTF-32LE
xx 00 xx 00 UTF-16LE
xx xx xx xx UTF-8
So the JSON text above would not match any of the table entries, causing
an error.
--
Joe Hildebrand