Subject: [Json] Object names, once more (Re: Response to Statement from W3C TAG)

From: Nico Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2013 01:01:31 -0600

On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 8:12 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock <[email-masked]> wrote:
> First, the console out from an experiment run from the developer console of
> Firefox 27

I (and many others) can show you examples of JSON tooling that doesn't
preserve either duplicate object names and/or object name ordering.
Examples are nice but not normative.  Even of some ECMA document
somewhere strongly says or implies what you say, at best we'll
conclude that there are *two* JSONs, and then we need to decide how to
signal which any one app/document uses (in some cases there may no way
to do so other than via schema).

Once more, speaking for myself, my sense of the WG is that we're not
going to change RFC4627 to say that object name ordering and
duplicates are significant.  There are other options, but none will
make everyone happy.  If JSON got forked over the past seven years,
there won't be any stuffing of the genie back into the bottle.

Nico
--

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2013 08:19:13 +0100

On 08 Dec 2013, at 08:01, Nico Williams <[email-masked]> wrote:

> *two* JSONs

I think ESON is still pretty much free as an abbreviation (apart from an obscure JSON-based configuration file language).

Grüße, Carsten