My main feedback is that since this topic has been covered so many times in the past, any serious standardization proposal should include a section surveying existing "canonical JSON" standards and implementations and comparing the proposed standard with prior work. A standard should be a "best of breed" implementation, which adequately replaces existing work, not just another average implementation narrowly tailored to the proposer's own particular use cases.
I don't think Unicode Normalization should necessarily be a requirement of a canonical JSON standard. But any reasonable proposal should at least acknowledge the issues raised, as well as the issues of embedded nulls, HTML safety, and the other points that have been raised in this thread (and the many other points addressed by the dozen other "canonical JSON" implementations I linked to). If you're just going to say, "my proposal is good enough", well then mine is "good enough" too, and so are the other dozen, and none of them need to be the "official JavaScript canonical form". What's your compelling argument that your proposal is better than any of the other dozen? And why start the discussion on this list if you're not going to do anything with the information you learn? --scott
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
