On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 12:13 AM, Antony Blakey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 28/11/2008, at 4:08 PM, Paul Davis wrote: > >> Any JSON diff format is going to require the JSON RFC's 'SHOULD' to >> either be changed to a 'MAY' or 'MUST'. The ambiguity in 'SHOULD' is >> going to cause problems. > > That "SHOULD" is dominated by the preceding statement that "A JSON text is a > serialized object or array", so it is effectively a "MUST" because the spec > doesn't allow for any other possibility. IMO the JSON spec is not ambiguous > in respect of this issue. >
I fail to see how "A JSON text is a serialized object or array" in any way dictates that object member names must be unique. Obviously to see such an interpretation we have to ignore 99% of the current JSON implementations that assume JSON object member names are unique, but still, a strict reading of the spec allows non unique member names. And as I said, the current JSON dserializer that couchdb uses allows for non-unique member names (but only ever operates on the first). >> Or we could use a array[-1] syntax like some languages. > > For sure. My point is that a JSON-community driven diff might presume that > Javascript expressions (as in JSONPath) are OK, and hence assume you would > use "@.length - 1". The context of the JSON community is not necessarily > Couch's context. > Here we're totally in agreement. We should yell and scream at the JSON community for being shortsighted int their ideas of requiring a full JavaScript engine to evaluate their RFC's. That's not to say we don't want them on our side though. Perhaps it should be more of a subtle coup d'état in how we approach making a diff spec. > Antony Blakey > ------------- > CTO, Linkuistics Pty Ltd > Ph: 0438 840 787 > > There is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success, nor more > dangerous to manage than the creation of a new order of things... Whenever > his enemies have the ability to attack the innovator, they do so with the > passion of partisans, while the others defend him sluggishly, So that the > innovator and his party alike are vulnerable. > -- Niccolo Machiavelli, 1513, The Prince. > > >
