Re: [Json] Proposed minimal change for duplicate names in objects

Stephan Beal <sgbeal@googlemail.com> Mon, 08 July 2013 08:49 UTC

Return-Path: <sgbeal@googlemail.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 A9F5F11E81B8 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 01:49:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 bQXamNIY0eKA for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 01:49:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-x22a.google.com (mail-wg0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::22a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0F8411E81AB for <json@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 01:47:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wg0-f42.google.com with SMTP id z11so8688477wgg.5 for <json@ietf.org>; Mon, 08 Jul 2013 01:46:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=Il8X8K9pLsH4AEm5P4XjT0A6MQhZLdBtB+Vw3amalyE=; b=DeW3nSo5XCojQy3bIKnDhJ1/ok/ZlCV25QkFYDUb9rg5ianoQ4dVUTTn4KUJijL+Ts Emqt9kptkj5CvmENgWZghmVN+XBoBBzH6Tsis7T4L+eIwsI+pjPaPz+Q8YyAvTKDaEmj zrh7XmQ9Q13/Ne1TAHeSYhEHPPydB1BIRxd5kHeE/iSHbghxlKt3+gFH9IspI/YUj1JL 7Nqfbe+Bv6f+wjOi+gC9AiLgbYqHOC+9LjQsdgICe5botopND9KO9N2r09T28DezNQWk aQcTgMv+PHey0qXm8cyawuuIT5rD7JTGtyrJeOHcoxAh0yoNwoTg/l+XEpqiuq1AerzU 5HfA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.185.148 with SMTP id fc20mr11258083wic.0.1373273204386; Mon, 08 Jul 2013 01:46:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.1.241 with HTTP; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 01:46:44 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <51da79b4.84e9440a.45eb.ffffaadeSMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com>
References: <B86E1D4B-1DC8-4AD6-B8B3-E989599E0537@vpnc.org> <CAK3OfOj3MNNhjwo2bMa5CgoqynzMRVvviBXC8szxt5D17Z7FDg@mail.gmail.com> <51D3C63C.5030703@cisco.com> <51D48023.1020008@qti.qualcomm.com> <20130703201143.GL32044@mercury.ccil.org> <00cd01ce7a9f$19adeaa0$4d09bfe0$@augustcellars.com> <00d701ce7aa6$cc5fe700$651fb500$@augustcellars.com> <CAK3OfOiWrWCvNQneokyycV1Jb98M=UR-U7z0dhxUjzVdf+PwDw@mail.gmail.com> <CAKd4nAhMfz_NAFL4YmLFX_=69JizWoPvLac+1_yr0K2LJap3DQ@mail.gmail.com> <72BA0BFC-1C4D-4537-8B39-8B32F38D63E3@yahoo.com> <51da79b4.84e9440a.45eb.ffffaadeSMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2013 10:46:44 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKd4nAhinYSTRz_-Xnms0CxEz_zik1kM0WyY_LNfWj2do70GPQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Stephan Beal <sgbeal@googlemail.com>
To: "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c23f3686f27d04e0fc1564
Subject: Re: [Json] Proposed minimal change for duplicate names in objects
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: Mon, 08 Jul 2013 08:49:20 -0000

On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Markus Lanthaler
<markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>wrote;wrote:

> On Monday, July 08, 2013 9:17 AM, Vinny A wrote:
> > Could people come to a consensus on this if the proposed wording was
> > similar to the above? I.e "Implementations MUST NOT send duplicate names;
> > if received, parsers MAY NOT process the JSON, instead issuing an error.
> > If implementations insist on supporting duplicated names, they MUST
> > process in the following manner (insert boilerplate warnings about
> >  undesirable behavior)."
>
> I personally could certainly live with something like this but the "MUST
> NOT send" is problematic as such data exists and we shouldn't invalidate
> it. Changing that to SHOULD NOT would probably be something more people
> would be equally (un)happy with.
>

>From me, certainly. i don't see "MUST NOT SEND" as being too helpful
because the receivers need to be able to recognize the existence of dupes
in that case. i.e. it implies a MUST on the consumers, and the "must" on
the consumers is what i find most prickly in this particular topic.

-- 
----- stephan beal
http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/
http://gplus.to/sgbeal