On 17/12/13 22:59, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On Dec 17, 2013, at 1:31 PM, Elwyn Davies <[email protected]> wrote:
However, it seems to me that the inability to come up with a view as to what
unordered actually means could well lead to interoperability issues. Whether
this is significant is clearly not my call, but we should also be clear that
the issue exists.
Do you believe that those interoperability issues are not covered by the text
in Section 4?
An object whose names are all unique is interoperable in the sense
that all software implementations which receive that object will
agree on the name-value mappings. When the names within an object
are not unique, the behavior of software that receives such an object
is unpredictable. Many implementations report the last name/value
pair only; other implementations report an error or fail to parse the
object; other implementations report all of the name/value pairs,
including duplicates.
--Paul Hoffman
It may be that we are counting the traditional angels, but yes. This
doesn't say
anything about what order, or lack of order, the entries with different
names should occur. Having several of the same name as long as they
appear together would conform to an ordered set.
Would it cause problems to add "irrespective of the order that the
name/value pairs appear in the JSON string" to the end of the first
sentence in the above?
/Elwyn
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
