Re: [apps-discuss] And another question

Francis Galiegue <fgaliegue@gmail.com> Fri, 24 May 2013 04:33 UTC

Return-Path: <fgaliegue@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50E4E21F9732 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 May 2013 21:33:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id I1+jcUfS1S4q for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 May 2013 21:33:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ee0-f46.google.com (mail-ee0-f46.google.com [74.125.83.46]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA91521F972F for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 May 2013 21:33:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ee0-f46.google.com with SMTP id e49so2233559eek.19 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 May 2013 21:33:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=GIWd6r+0NYaDg6nYGN2/W0Ogr/JT61KyHAFSmAptrs0=; b=S1HWaSzlm9Kf0vHVlPDW+f3aAxCFOWyIEJ6QZgFeos8j53kXV5faTrqXFGGq+r3JTz NmkPmY+SWmnPsu4q+m9gGk/AHvmOtjERhrCM1rCmp+wXj1iExSF/ZPm7WMQVyckgKAiU vx1joigy/kHtDKS/wF1hB536b1ZoI2xlsJH9KBHuhxwiV+qihMoeFwJoXIPTrxGgto3M 45DECN8HlJfEJQDcmDfoWJgkJ6JEKKly4Xd74hZjzXoUL5RgBO0QXyG9Mn9ZzHM3tJuw phjJPcV/9m//9uBj1EGxmmjPHHFpXknCEaz9OkrV3jx3LO1RmDJuqmSrohQUNSfThTXk pmTw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.14.172.195 with SMTP id t43mr38609400eel.34.1369370022598; Thu, 23 May 2013 21:33:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.15.55.136 with HTTP; Thu, 23 May 2013 21:33:42 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <519E7346.6060909@att.com>
References: <CALcybBAKi3w=tP7-3JqhXBb-W5uDgm6s7F7StYe8=FJM9UbLFg@mail.gmail.com> <519E7346.6060909@att.com>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 06:33:42 +0200
Message-ID: <CALcybBAnSYHMO04Q2o0YwFCT_e5-RV9nAG6AU9r070N7fAGgJg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Francis Galiegue <fgaliegue@gmail.com>
To: Tony Hansen <tony@att.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] And another question
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 04:33:48 -0000

On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 9:51 PM, Tony Hansen <tony@att.com> wrote:
> On 5/23/2013 12:59 PM, Francis Galiegue wrote:
>> Another question is about handling empty _keys_ in an associative
>> array. Is this legal at all? Empty values are allowed, they obviously
>> have a use (a query parameter can be empty for instance), but what
>> about (written as a JSON Object):
>>
>> {
>>     "foo": "",
>>     "": "bar"
>> }
>>
>> ?
>
> This looks perfectly legal to me.
>

Yes, it is legal JSON. However, it is hardly of any use in a URI
template at all. Query parameter names cannot be empty, domain name
components ditto, others. Bah.

--
Francis Galiegue, fgaliegue@gmail.com
JSON Schema in Java: http://json-schema-validator.herokuapp.com