Am Mittwoch, dem 10.02.2021 um 17:28 +0100 schrieb Jonas Schäfer: > Thanks for the minutes! > > > As of now, I’m still -1. > > I want to elaborate the reason a little. Note that my -1 is solely > based on > the ordering requirement for <reported/>, not the other commit in > that PR. > > I am not aware of any place where we impose an ordering between > elements which > have *different* fully-qualified XML names (i.e. after namespace > expansion) [in > any Draft or significantly deployed standard]. Introducing this > requirement > means that implementations cannot use hash maps which map the element > type > (fully-qualified XML name) to a list of element representing objects > anymore, > because that structure does not allow storing the ordering of > unrelated > elements. If you have concrete examples where that is the case, > please let me > know. >
I cannot recall now where exactly it was but there was definitelly something about the order of the fields somewhere, because I remember adding a separate list with original key order to be able to use hashmap while still preserving the order. But I really cannor recall where it was coming from :( > Introducing this restriction this late into the standards process for > no > interoperability reason and in a Final standard is not justified. > > kind regards, > Jonas > _______________________________________________ > Standards mailing list > Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards > Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org > _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org _______________________________________________
