Re: [Json] Response to Statement from W3C TAG

[Nico Williams <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, Dec 08, 2013 at 11:13:12AM -0800, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
> I agree.  Fundamentally I have been asking what is the technical
> meaning of the statement "an object is an unordered collection" that
> occurs in section 1 (Introduction) of the current draft for 4627bis.
> No one has yet responded to my question regarding whether or not
> statements in the Introduction are considered normative.  

Tim's proposed addition to section 4 should address this.

Specifically, "unordered" means that interoperable implementations can't
rely on object name ordering (nor duplicate handing, for that matter).
Note that there's no SHOULD or MUST as to this.  We had long, long
discussions over this where some insisted on stronger language
forbidding duplicates, and we settled for this description instead.

> Section 4 which presumably is supplying the normative specification of
> a JSON object currently says nothing about member ordering.  

Tim's proposed addition to section 4 should address this.  I support it.

> If the intent is for the statement in the introduction to have some
> normative mean, then please make that meaning technically clear in
> section 4. 

It's not intended to have normative meaning in the sense of an RFC2119
MUST.  See those long, long discussions in the archives.

Nico
--