<shepherd hat on>
Thanks for the followup comments on -10. In general, I think they are fine, and Nico could put out a -11 before IESG telechat review. See below.
On Dec 10, 2014, at 7:51 AM, Black, David <david.black@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> The -10 version of this draft resolves items [A]-[E] from the
> Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of -09, and the IESG is in the process of
> resolving the (silly) idnits complaint about RFC 20 being a possible
> downref.
>
> For item [D], a different approach was taken instead of modifying
> the ABNF - the resulting new Section 2.4 is a definite improvement
> to the draft, and is significantly clearer than the modified ABNF
> would have been. Nicely done.
>
> Item [F] about the <angle-bracketed> text in the IANA Considerations
> (Section 4) remains open - if the intent is to not deal with replacing
> that text until after IESG approval, an RFC Editor Note to that effect
> should be added to Section 4.
David: I disagree with the need for this change. The RFC Editor can interpret the current wording just fine.
> I have an additional editorial concern - given all the discussion about
> UTF-8, it would be good for the draft to make it clear early on
> that JSON text sequences are UTF-8 only. Here are some suggested changes.
>
> Abstract:
>
> This document describes the JSON text sequence format and associated
> media type, "application/json-seq". A JSON text sequence consists of
> any number of JSON texts, each prefix by an Record Separator
> (U+001E), and each ending with a newline character (U+000A).
>
> "any number of JSON texts" -> "any number of UTF-8 encoded JSON texts"
This change concerns me, because it sounds like a JSON text sequence could consist of JSON texts encoded in UTF-8 and other encodings. I would instead prefer "any number of JSON texts, all encoded in UTF-8,".
I also just now noticed that there is a typo in the abstract: it should say "each prefix*ed*".
> It also looks like ASCII names for RS and LF are being mixed w/Unicode
> codepoints in the second sentence in the abstract. I'm not sure that's
> a good thing to do, especially as the body of the draft refers to RS and
> LF as being ASCII. Here are a couple of changes that would remedy this:
>
> "an Record Separator (U+001E)" -> "an ASCII Record Separator (0x1E)"
> "a newline character (U+000A)" -> "an ASCII newline character (0x0A)"
With John Cowan's change ("an ASCII Line Feed character (0x1E)" instead of "an ASCII Record Separator (0x1E)"), that would indeed be clearer.
> Section 2 JSON Text Sequence Format:
>
> I suggest adding this sentence as a separate paragraph at the end of this
> section (i.e., just before Section 2.1):
>
> JSON text sequences MUST use UTF-8 encoding; other encodings of JSON
> (i.e., UTF-16 and UTF-32) MUST NOT be used.
>
That seems like a good clarifying addition as well.
Nico: could you issue a -11 with the above changes?
--Paul Hoffman