Clarify that canonical JSON is not a requirement #1249
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
sudo-bmitch
requested review from
jonjohnsonjr,
stevvooe,
sajayantony,
tianon and
cyphar
as code owners
Open
sudo-bmitch
commented
Feb 28, 2025
Signed-off-by: Brandon Mitchell <[email protected]>
tianon
approved these changes
Mar 1, 2025
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Fixes #1226.
RFC 8785 sent me over to RFC 7493 which I think we really want and everyone should already be doing. I moved the canonical reference to point to RFC 8785 and downgrade it from a SHOULD to a MAY to better reflect the current state of implementations. The phrase "The order of entries in JSON objects is not significant." I copied from the runtime spec.