> Am 11.06.2018 um 16:48 schrieb Richard O'Keefe <rao...@gmail.com>:
>
> I'm really baffled here.
> Look at the definition at json.org.
>
> An object is an UNORDERED set of name/value pairs.
>
> Or look at ECMA-404, which json.org points to.
>
> The JSON syntax does not impose any restrictions on
> the strings used as names ... and DOES NOT ASSIGN
> ANY SIGNIFICANCE TO THE ORDERING.
>
> When you say that "it is pretty clear that the order is
> important for that format" I fail to understand you.
> It is absolutely clear that by design the order is NOT
> important or even significant for JSON.
>
> JSON Pointer does not provide any way to refer to order
> in an "object": /2 applied to an object will look for
> the name "2" as a string.
>
> JSONPath does not provide any way to refer to order in
> an "object": [2] applied to an object will look for
> the name "2" as a string.
>
> JSON Schema does not provide any way to constrain or
> refer to order in an "object".
>
> As for databases, Postgres documentation says of JSONB
> that "Insignificant whitespace is discarded, and
> the order of object keys is not preserved."
>
> If you are communicating with someone else who is using
> pseudo-JSON that does attach semantics to the order of
> the name/value pairs, then of course you do whatever you
> have to in order to communicate successfully. Just don't
> think of it as JSON. If you have two programs whose
> protocol you control, again you can use JSON syntax with
> different semantics all you want. Just don't think of it
> as JSON. Heck, if it is important to you to distinguish
> between integer 1 and floating point 1.0, you can add
> your own semantics if you like, but *JSON* doesn't
> distinguish them.
>
> As for MongoDB, it works with BSON (which is richer than
> JSON. which is why "MongoDB Extended JSON exists), and
> does some seriously odd things, like regarding
> {} and {"a": null} as equal. (According to the 3.6 manual.)
>
> Do whatever you have to do to get the job done,
> but just remember that most JSON tools think they are
> dealing with *JSON*, not something else that looks
> like it but has different semantics, and can be relied
> on to preserve or respect *JSON* semantics, not some
> other semantics unknown to them.
>
It was not talked about JSON but about a content format that uses JSON as its
encoding. So if that format how poor it appears to use puts significance to
the ordering why you even start to argue?
Why care about JSON tools and talk about semantics because there is no semantic
in an encoding format. It is an encoding format of nested keys and values and
arrays. No key or value has special meaning. It is dumb JSON.
You can use every JSON tool to read and destroy it. Like you can read a binary
file in a text editor apply newline conventions and destroy it.
What is the point here?
Norbert
