Re: [Json] The names within an object SHOULD be unique.

Tony Hansen <tony@att.com> Thu, 06 June 2013 12:36 UTC

Return-Path: <tony@att.com>
X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3114221F963F for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Jun 2013 05:36:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.307
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.307 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MISSING_HEADERS=1.292, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 Scl36euvrk3h for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Jun 2013 05:36:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com (nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com [209.65.160.94]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C037821F96A9 for <json@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Jun 2013 05:36:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from unknown [144.160.20.145] (EHLO mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) by nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com(mxl_mta-6.15.0-1) over TLS secured channel with ESMTP id 03280b15.0.124710.00-421.314744.nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com (envelope-from <tony@att.com>); Thu, 06 Jun 2013 12:36:00 +0000 (UTC)
X-MXL-Hash: 51b082305dd0ac47-6d01d3c2d5b41f9e45cc956858362afcc1eb5ead
Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r56Ca0Kd003883 for <json@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Jun 2013 08:36:00 -0400
Received: from alpi131.aldc.att.com (alpi131.aldc.att.com [130.8.218.69]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r56CZtwt003839 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <json@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Jun 2013 08:35:55 -0400
Received: from alpi153.aldc.att.com (alpi153.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by alpi131.aldc.att.com (RSA Interceptor) for <json@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Jun 2013 12:35:38 GMT
Received: from aldc.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpi153.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r56CZbMD030581 for <json@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Jun 2013 08:35:38 -0400
Received: from dns.maillennium.att.com (maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by alpi153.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r56CZZ7F030552 for <json@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Jun 2013 08:35:35 -0400
Received: from [135.70.157.211] (vpn-135-70-157-211.vpn.mwst.att.com[135.70.157.211]) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with ESMTP id <20130606123535gw100bhh38e> (Authid: tony); Thu, 6 Jun 2013 12:35:35 +0000
X-Originating-IP: [135.70.157.211]
Message-ID: <51B08219.8090204@att.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2013 08:35:37 -0400
From: Tony Hansen <tony@att.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
CC: "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>
References: <51AF8479.5080002@crockford.com> <51AF9ACF.5020507@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <51AF9ACF.5020507@cisco.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-RSA-Inspected: yes
X-RSA-Classifications: public
X-Spam: [F=0.2000000000; CM=0.500; S=0.200(2010122901)]
X-MAIL-FROM: <tony@att.com>
X-SOURCE-IP: [144.160.20.145]
X-AnalysisOut: [v=2.0 cv=EcF/toaC c=1 sm=0 a=ZRNLZ4dFUbCvG8UMqPvVAA==:17 a]
X-AnalysisOut: [=z_w9iVmaqBwA:10 a=bfzWQn4VrGAA:10 a=ROTfHnZC7MAA:10 a=ofM]
X-AnalysisOut: [gfj31e3cA:10 a=BLceEmwcHowA:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=zQP7CpK]
X-AnalysisOut: [OAAAA:8 a=So8vTL0ZrKIA:10 a=jq5s4RAdnkBb3hsVTRAA:9 a=wPNLv]
X-AnalysisOut: [fGTeEIA:10]
Subject: Re: [Json] The names within an object SHOULD be unique.
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" <json.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/json>, <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/json>
List-Post: <mailto:json@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json>, <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2013 12:36:08 -0000

Of all the wordings that have been proposed so far, I like Eliot's best.

    Tony Hansen

On 6/5/2013 4:08 PM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 6/5/13 8:33 PM, Douglas Crockford wrote:
>> This was the biggest blunder in the RFC. SHOULD should have been MUST.
>>
>> It is, sadly, too late to repair this. Instead, we must specify what
>> happens when you do the thing you SHOULD NOT do. We need to provide
>> implementations some slack here because some implementations do the
>> right thing and reject. Some implementations do the lazy thing and
>> take that last use of the name.
> Demonstrating my age, an old trick we've done that goes back to RFC-1123
> is to say MUST NOT send, and then implementations MAY NOT process, and
> if they do MUST process thusly...
>
> That gives you the possibility of potentially getting rid of something
> at a later date.  I don't know if you want to use it here.  It only
> sometimes works.
>
> Eliot