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

[Stephan Beal <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Markus Lanthaler
<[e-mail]>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