On Dec 7, 2013, at 11:09 PM, Martin J. Dürst wrote: > [Somebody please forward this message to [email protected], unless it's > not rejected.] > > On 2013/12/08 8:05, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote: > >>> In JSON, objects are unordered collections or sets of name/value pairs. It >>> says so right there on json.org (“sets”), and it says so in RFC 4627 >>> (“collections”)*). We may not like it, but it has been a promise for a >>> decade. We need to heed it. (Another promise was that JSON doesn’t >>> change**).) >> >> You also need to look at objective reality and consider the possibility that >> the informal (and non-normative text) on both the json.org website and in >> the original RFC never actually matched reality. >> >> JSON is derived from JavaSript (whose standard is ECMA-262) and since 2009, >> ECMA-262 (and its clone ISO/IEC-16262) has included a normative >> specification for parsing JSON text that includes an ordering semantics for >> object members. > > RFC 4627 was published in July 2006, so the ECMA-262 version of 2009 may not > be very relevant. > My understanding was that one of reasons for activating the JSONWG was the perceived need for a JSON grammar that could be normatively referenced. RFC 4627 (2006) was not a normative document. ECMA-262, 5th Edition (2009) aka ISO/IEC-16262-3 (2011) is a normative document. So is ECMA-404.
Allen _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
