On 27/11/2008, at 10:10 PM, Noah Slater wrote:
On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 08:45:18PM +1030, Antony Blakey wrote:
* JPath its self is a nebulous concept.
In what sense do you think the concept is nebulous?
It lacks an RFC. :)
I didn't realize that JSON had an RFC! Now that I've read it, I think
that this statement:
"A JSON text is a serialized object or array."
which dominates this subsequent statement:
"The names within an object SHOULD be unique."
clearly resolves the ambiguity discussed in a previous thread
regarding duplicate hash keys, in the manner that I suggested. Namely,
duplicate keys are not allowed because they cannot be the result of
serializing a javascript object. It specifically defines a JSON
*text*, so model equivalence isn't sufficient.
Given that JPath is a subset of javascript access path syntax and
semantics, would a definition that references the appropriate ECMA
clauses meet with your approval? Or is this issue blocked IYO until a
full JSON transformation/mutation/update RFC is approved (whatever
approval means).
Antony Blakey
-------------
CTO, Linkuistics Pty Ltd
Ph: 0438 840 787
There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
deficiencies.
-- C. A. R. Hoare
