Works for me. On 17/12/2012, at 10:12 AM, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Anyone have any comments on what I suggested below? > > Barry > > On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 11:25 PM, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Personally -- to me, it seems like you're getting hung up on the word "add." >> ... >>> "add" means what the format definition says it means, because otherwise >>> we have to rationalise all of the different systems people might use it with >>> to make sense. >> >> OK, I'll buy that. Then let's take a different approach, and make it >> clearer that it's Humpty Dumpty's version of "add", so maybe neither I >> nor Alice will get hung up on it: >> >> OLD >> The "add" operation adds a new value at the target location. The >> operation object MUST contain a "value" member that specifies the >> value to be added. >> NEW >> The "add" operation performs the following function, depending upon >> what the target location references (see details below): >> >> o If the target location specifies an array index, a new value is >> inserted into the array at the specified index. >> >> o If the target location specifies an object member that does not >> already exist, a new member is added to the object. >> >> o If the target location specifies an object member that does >> exist, that member's value is replaced. >> END >> >> That may be wordier than we need, but I think it makes the point... >> feel free to wordsmith. With something like that, I think we can say >> that we had to pick a name, "add" was picked, and it means exactly >> what we choose it to mean - neither more nor less. And that's glory >> for you. >> >> Barry -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/