On Dec 17, 2013, at 4:52 PM, Elwyn Davies <[email protected]> wrote:
> I am coming at it from the perspective of a user. When I was first > doing things with JSON, I could not find anything that told me either > that array elements could be anything or that object order didn't > mattter. You noted earlier the issue with "array elements could be anything", and based on that, we added words to that effect. We cannot say "object order didn't matter" because it does for some parsers. > This wasted time for me and affected the code I was writing. Correct. If RFC 4627 had been written more carefully, this would not be a problem. It wasn't written carefully in a number of areas that affect interoperability, as we note (as politely as possible) throughout the document at hand. It sounds like you are chafing against the charter, which prohibits us from making significant changes that will break implementations that made different guesses about what the sloppy parts of RFC 4627 meant. Jari can decide if that is significant enough to send the document back to the WG for this (and at least three other areas) where we were forced to come up with "if you do X you will most likely be interoperable" wording, and have us make breaking changes to the new document. I hope that doesn't happen. > There are quite a lot of potential users. Certainly. And that is the motivator for the wording that we added, instead of just moving RFC 4627 to standards track with no warning about the sloppiness. --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
