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

"Markus Lanthaler" <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> Mon, 08 July 2013 08:32 UTC

Return-Path: <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
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 AAF6E11E819D for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 01:32:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.15
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.15 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT=1.449]
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 ODG+rVVWJVOq for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 01:32:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.21]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A66221F8447 for <json@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 01:29:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Vostro3500 ([77.117.246.63]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx103) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MUYiV-1UmvzZ0gFP-00RJWV for <json@ietf.org>; Mon, 08 Jul 2013 10:29:34 +0200
From: "Markus Lanthaler" <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
To: <json@ietf.org>
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>
In-Reply-To: <72BA0BFC-1C4D-4537-8B39-8B32F38D63E3@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2013 10:29:27 +0200
Message-ID: <009601ce7bb5$46045870$d20d0950$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Ac57qyDJcJOw8ZkGSpyqab6OudLz6gACZD5Q
Content-Language: de
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:TuTggNNrC+g8vDI0Ufaekz8+wsmJEYrM/GUf8tGG5zvo9x3YC/Z U8nZKwb0cvL9iYg7/gMnH3+4H2q8BiMACytRFP7sL2Txc59HkJnOpCM05M1hyvsUNozhz+b e4gEddSNXkwGIOmlMohqbvLXh7+VNngkVQAtNSy779xCuarZzYptVxkzcikgo0HNacf/QsF FBKLMqM7+cVOi2WLibh5g==
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 08:32:49 -0000

On Monday, July 08, 2013 9:17 AM, Vinny A wrote:
> On Jun 5, 2013, at 3:08 PM, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> wrote:
>> 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...
> 
> 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.


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler