Re: [Json] Counterproposal #2 on work items

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Thu, 21 February 2013 14:48 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
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 960C721F8DE9 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 06:48:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.587
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.587 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.012, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SK1+1TDUTX6L for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 06:48:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17D2F21F8CAC for <json@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 06:48:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.20.30.90] (50-1-98-12.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.1.98.12]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r1LEm6ZY097187 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for <json@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 07:48:07 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAChr6Syay=cA_99SCaisyF9jHZ4XBgvngnSPFC=xUz+wCA0-SQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 06:48:06 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <56D1C59D-D6BE-453D-9E0D-A300E9A1AC8A@vpnc.org>
References: <CALcybBC87P7FT7n5d8xmXMxSFU1LBS9eJUsRX4hfYP5CUJr3QA@mail.gmail.com> <A723FC6ECC552A4D8C8249D9E07425A70F89B751@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com> <CALcybBBSL3w1-JRzUVWMmfS+jzytKNOv6omD1cR+_CLjze6WsA@mail.gmail.com> <12CE5BFB-49C5-48D0-96DF-F78F0D60578A@yahoo.com> <CALcybBCJ=z6u=1CGURB4ECoOaOA1igDy0H64fRm5Sj1HWQcRCg@mail.gmail.com> <1361419333.51990.YahooMailNeo@web125604.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <4E2B71678D46B212D1553AD2@cyrus.local> <CAChr6Syimm2whKGVD2rtXimV5k59_wO8_=9EQ4fOWF=BRCUroA@mail.gmail.com> <CAHBU6ivWtUrJ9nu2XBr7ffTkxoge=AB9gME-n3F2fp6fJfBrXA@mail.gmail.com> <CAChr6Syay=cA_99SCaisyF9jHZ4XBgvngnSPFC=xUz+wCA0-SQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
Subject: Re: [Json] Counterproposal #2 on work items
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion related to JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\)." <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, 21 Feb 2013 14:48:08 -0000

On Feb 20, 2013, at 10:46 PM, Robert Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 10:33 PM, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> wrote:
>> Which was why I was interested in a best-practices spec.
> 
> I agree that such a document would be the right place to address the
> duplicate-key issue.

If we felt that best-practices RFCs were ever read, I would agree. They're not, and even when they are, people see "SHOULD" and say "great, I don't *have* to do that".

The standard should be clear and not allow bendy-ness.

--Paul Hoffman