Subject: [Json] (no subject)

From: Tim Bray <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 19:58:03 -0800

Just put finishing touches on the draft, and I surveyed back through the WG
and found Barry’s note:

​​
O
​​
n Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 1:29 AM, Barry Leiba <[email-masked]> wrote:
​​

> ​​
> > "Byte order mark" in Section 8.1 needs a definition, for example by
> ​​
>
> > including the Unicode codepoint value.
>
​​
​Correct - a bit more work than you might think, since there's not a really
good canonical reference. So I just updated the text to read
“Implementations MUST NOT add a byte order mark (either U+FEFF or U+FFE) to
the beginning of​…”

Anyone have a better idea?
​​

> ​​
> > In Section 11: I think you meant to update references to point to this
> ​​
> > document, not an earlier RFC.
>

OK
​​

> >
> > Appendix A needs to be checked that it is correct. I think at least a
> couple
> > of things are out of date.
>

​Yep. Now it's just deltas since 7159.​

​> First mention of UTF-8, UTF-16 need normative references.

OK.  One reference (Unicode Section 3) will do for all three.

---

From: Martin J. Dürst <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 14:42:12 +0900

> Anyone have a better idea?

Definitely. First, you probably intended this to be (either U+FEFF or 
U+FFFE). Second, only the former is the BOM, the second is a 
noncharacter according to Unicode terminology. To be more explicit, the 
BOM is always the codepoint U+FEFF. It appears as 0xFE 0xFF in big 
endian UTF-16, and as 0xFF 0xFE in little endian UTF-16, but that's a 
separate issue.

Regards,   Martin.