On 2018-03-16 21:41, Mike Samuel wrote:
On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 4:34 PM, C. Scott Ananian <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 4:07 PM, Anders Rundgren <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Perfection is often the enemy of good. So, to be clear: you don't plan on actually incorporating any feedback into your proposal, since it's already "good"?
I'm not going to incorporate Unicode Normalization because it is better addressed at the application level.
To restate my main objections: I think any proposal to offer an alternative stringify instead of a string->string transform is not very good and could be easily improved by rephrasing it as a string->string transform.
Could you give a concrete example on that?
Also, presenting this as a better wire format I think is misleading
This was not my intention, I just expressed it poorly. It was rather mixed with my objection to Unicode Normalization.
since I think it has no advantages as a wire format over JSON.stringify's output,
Right, JSON.stringify() is a much better for creating the external format since it honors "creation order".
and recommending canonical JSON, except for the short duration needed to hash it creates more problems than it solves.
Wrong, this is exactly what I had in mind. If the hashable/canonicalizable method works as described (it does not?) it solves the hashing problem. Anders _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
