IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Json] Counterproposal on work items

"Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com> Wed, 27 February 2013 18:40 UTC

Return-Path: <paulej@packetizer.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 D16FF21F88E1 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 10:40:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.409
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.409 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.190, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 vBSN7NYoZf6p for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 10:40:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dublin.packetizer.com (dublin.packetizer.com [75.101.130.125]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DC5E21F88BE for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 10:40:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sydney (rrcs-98-101-148-48.midsouth.biz.rr.com [98.101.148.48]) (authenticated bits=0) by dublin.packetizer.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r1RIeWvP016545 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 27 Feb 2013 13:40:33 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=packetizer.com; s=dublin; t=1361990433; bh=EuV4G+douZwFshWyRx68+iqZQ7l0U75U0aCsNlUMB24=; h=From:To:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=YyZlUOm8sMpYzK0/+WPy2DGI+g3EDWDT5Dirg6EFCUhxW24AsfqLst5VzkAx2yHLR LgwRMCCZHfl+1uCiBfoDxqk+dCxPcT3pnXp+ApOoqKg38zgV7VIaygQG+KwmiW0n8+ xB+Aa7ltJvk3YKH3dqa504GLYXLyHnEppwxSxFXY=
From: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>
To: 'Francis Galiegue' <fgaliegue@gmail.com>, 'Barry Leiba' <barryleiba@computer.org>
References: <CAHBU6ityBeA+M-PEme09gO_jVySr33-X308i1UttxrQwSgYmGQ@mail.gmail.com> <0F513426-F26D-48F4-A7A8-88F3D3DA881B@vpnc.org> <CAK3OfOjFCnR8k1csVOkSKTDpA8exDvYdAijn80HKD5zwNzzeSw@mail.gmail.com> <4514F5D7-4A7E-476F-987D-C4C617F2BCBD@vpnc.org> <4D80AE86-4DBA-4236-9E2A-A06F2F9C30F7@mnot.net> <00b001ce1509$c4c99fc0$4e5cdf40$@packetizer.com> <CAC4RtVDXwPRL-Cz_Xf-kjU3dzzY+JheDGivSE9hF2v1NLkWEgQ@mail.gmail.com> <CALcybBApAiJYaEAV+aOCxNaWHQUBSiJRvXNzDVVBbnaTFNN_1A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALcybBApAiJYaEAV+aOCxNaWHQUBSiJRvXNzDVVBbnaTFNN_1A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 13:40:40 -0500
Message-ID: <012801ce1519$f146fc90$d3d4f5b0$@packetizer.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQJmlHHeuQsFbaCuWES9MqWLBpmfyQGang29AdmZMiIDQRCvmgOfBT/QAkARRrECJlceGAJMhm1fltTQ8XA=
Content-Language: en-us
Cc: 'Mark Nottingham' <mnot@mnot.net>, 'Paul Hoffman' <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, json@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Json] Counterproposal 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: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 18:40:38 -0000

> Which means there will always be the sour point of specs like JSON Patch
> having to specify that an operation must have one and only one member
> named "op". Because "doesn't break compatibility" means the "no
> duplicate member names" will remain a SHOULD, right?

If you want more than one member named "op", why not just use an array?

Paul

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email