On Dec 17, 2013, at 12:45 PM, Elwyn Davies <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Minor issues:
>>>> s4: The unordered nature of the entries in an object is not mentioned.
>>>> Presumably it should state that two objects with the same sets of
>>>> name-value pairs ("members") in any order are logically equivalent.
>> This is not a "minor issue". Our charter says that the WG "will keep changes
>> to a minimum", and we have discussed almost every issue in this light. While
>> some people would agree with Elwyn that entries in an object are unordered,
>> many would disagree because JSON can be parsed by streaming parsers. There
>> were multiple threads on the mailing list about this topic. The wording in
>> the current draft comes after multiple consensus calls on the topic. Adding
>> a requirement that we now declare the entries unordered goes against the
>> charter and the consensus of the WG.
> In that case you have an inconsistency, since the Introduction says that the
> entries
> *are* unordered.
They *are* unordered. However, your message said that the document should state
a specific definition of that: "two objects with the same sets of name-value
pairs ("members") in any order are logically equivalent". We could not get
consensus on a specific definition of "unordered".
> I can't immediately see why using a streaming parser interacts
> with the unordered issue but I am willing to be enlightened.
A streaming parser doesn't keep track of what name-value pairs it has already
seen. They allow objects to have name-value pairs where the name is the same
but the value is different. Lots of people thought this was a terrible idea,
and many thought it was just fine. The wording in the document reflects the WG
consensus on this difference of view.
> I was assuming that
> the effect should be that the internal representation generated after parsing
> should be the same whatever order the entries come in.
That is a reasonable assumption, but it turns out there are many different
reasonable assumptions.
However, I can't tell if you consider this a "minor issue" or you really want
to force the WG to come up with a consensus definition for "unordered". If the
former, great; if the latter, I would want to hear from the IESG what they
consider we did wrong with the earlier consensus process and what process we
would need to resolve this.
--Paul Hoffman
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
