So, JSON has non-string values in other positions (as elements of arrays, or values in an object). Wouldn't your argument also lead to the conclusion that we don't need numbers at all, since we could get by with
{
"foo": "42",
"bar": ["1", "2", "3"]
}
There's also the issue of values with multiple equivalent string representations. I want 42.1 to equal 42.10 and 42.100. I also want {"foo":1,"bar":2} to equal {"bar":2,"foo":1} but with just strings you don't get that:
Good point, we could also expect {"foo": "42", "bar": "[1,2,3]"}. JSON does assume that the values have types (like a list) and that is inconsistent.
As for equivalent representations, I do not think what you want is universally applicable. 42.1 does not equal 42.10 until you use logic to rule that what you are working with are Numbers
In government regulations related text, for example, 42.10 could be 9 items after 42.1 and you might expect to see 42.1(a) and 42.10(a) as other items in the same set or related value sets.
Any way you cut it, the real problem seems to be that when data entry happens - a certain amount of context is assumed - and those assumptions have enough variance to need to be handled differently when the data is consumed. Which makes sense
{ "foo": "42", "bar": ["1", "2", "3"] }
There's also the issue of values with multiple equivalent string representations. I want 42.1 to equal 42.10 and 42.100. I also want {"foo":1,"bar":2} to equal {"bar":2,"foo":1} but with just strings you don't get that:
{ "{\"foo\":1,\"bar\":2}": 1, "{\"bar\":2,\"foo\":1}": 1, "42.1": 2, "42.10": 2, "42.100": 2 }
should have 2 keys but has 5