On 2018-03-18 20:15, Mike Samuel wrote:
I and others have been trying to move towards consensus on what a hashable form
of
JSON should look like.
We've identified key areas including
* property ordering,
* number canonicalization,
* string normalization,
* whether the input should be a JS value or a string of JSON,
* and others
but, as in this case, you seem to be arguing both sides of a position to
support your
proposal when you could just say "yes, the proposal could be adjusted along this
dimension and still provide what's required."
For good or for worse, my proposal is indeed about leveraging ES6's take on
JSON including limitations, {bugs}, and all.
I'm not backing from that position because then things get way more complex and
probably never even happen.
Extending [*] the range of "Number" is pretty much (in practical terms) the
same thing as changing JSON itself.
"Number" is indeed mindless crap but it is what is.
OTOH, the "Number" problem was effectively solved some 10 years ago through putting stuff
in "strings".
Using JSON Schema or "Old School" strongly typed programmatic solutions of the
kind I use, this actually works great.
Anders
*] The RFC gives you the right to do that but existing implementations do not.
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
