Re: [Json-canon] Dropping "Comparable" JSON

[Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>]

On Feb 9, 2019, at 08:05, Anders Rundgren <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> I begin to wonder if "Comparable" JSON (in the draft named "true" canonicalization) shouldn't be a "Feature at Risk" as the W3C folks call this.

Well, first of all, there is no “feature” here — the current draft just points out that deterministic encoding (“canonicalization”) reaches up to the application using JSON wherever that does its own encoding work.

That is a fact that is good to know, but nothing is contributed to interoperability by this document.

To do so, one would need a way to describe elements of the application data model and constrain the application data encoding decisions made on the way to the JSON data model.  We don’t have a good way to do this at the moment (even if the document misleadingly mentions the “schema” word).

Actually, the document about deterministic encoding of JSON (your “Hashable” thing — I still have no idea where these confused terms came from) could be stating this fact, if only as a matter of delineating what is *not* being defined in that document.

The document currently does not say how it was intended to be developed further.  As it stands, it is indeed of little use.  Collecting a set of preferred application-data-model to JSON-data-model encoding decisions, however, might be a useful undertaking, somewhat unrelated to the constraints on serializing the JSON data model that the other document wants to define, and probably on a much longer time scale.

Grüße, Carsten