IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Wed, 03 July 2013 17:19 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 89F8421F99FA for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 10:19:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.583
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.583 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.016, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 SiNJLPGARrMm for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 10:19:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28DD921F99D0 for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 10:19:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.20.30.90] (50-1-98-228.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.1.98.228]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r63HJGFg055316 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 3 Jul 2013 10:19:16 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\))
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <20130703170305.GG32044@mercury.ccil.org>
Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2013 10:19:15 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <7B759FAA-2B78-4A1C-82A1-E8BA7986AD82@vpnc.org>
References: <B86E1D4B-1DC8-4AD6-B8B3-E989599E0537@vpnc.org> <CAK3OfOj3MNNhjwo2bMa5CgoqynzMRVvviBXC8szxt5D17Z7FDg@mail.gmail.com> <51D3C63C.5030703@cisco.com> <CAK3OfOg5ErNO5zozaCB-qchSaUb-dy4Da5b1KKJNTM0Bnpm+1A@mail.gmail.com> <51D3CB52.7040902@cisco.com> <CAK3OfOgsWFpUzus_Nfq3rewtnnjwk-5_k2WX11yQhNPC+BoR5g@mail.gmail.com> <20130703162729.GC32044@mercury.ccil.org> <51D458A8.9070209@cisco.com> <20130703170305.GG32044@mercury.ccil.org>
To: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508)
Cc: "json@ietf.org WG" <json@ietf.org>
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: Wed, 03 Jul 2013 17:19:18 -0000

<no hat>

On Jul 3, 2013, at 10:03 AM, John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> wrote:

> Eliot Lear scripsit:
> 
>> I was thinking computational complexity not storage.
> 
> Oh.  But surely the whole point of streaming parsers is to reduce
> the amount of storage required?

In the work I have been doing on CBOR, I have heard both as reasons for different types of streaming parsers and encoders.

It would be unwise for this WG to assume we know the design considerations for any JSON parser or encoder. There are, as we now see, a zillion of them with overlapping design goals and constraints.

--Paul Hoffman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email