On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 10:25 PM, Brendan Eich <[email protected]> wrote: > Paul Hoffman wrote: > >> Thanks, but that doesn't match what Yehuda said. If anything, it shows that >> there is as widespread disagreement within TC39 as to what is a "breaking" >> change with respect to duplicate names in objects as there so far is in the >> JSON WG. > > > The minutes Rick cited show no disagreement other than Doug (I missed this > part of the March meeting). The "FTR: Majority opposition, no consensus" > note, I believe, means that everyone but Doug agreed that an incompatible > change was a bad idea, to be opposed. > > Is anything else unclear? Am I missing some other notes section? I do not > see "widespread disagreement within TC39 as to what is a "breaking" change > with respect to duplicate names in objects" in any of the "JSON, IETF > changes" meeting notes text (cited below).
A quick skim of the IETF list also indicates that people are discussing how characters in strings are treated, and I feel confident in predicting that any change for the 16-bit number interpretation that EcmaScript uses would be thought of as a breaking change by TC39. Sam _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
