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

["Markus Lanthaler" <[e-mail]>]

On Wednesday, July 03, 2013 1:26 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> Do either or both of these proposals work for people in the WG?

I would be fine with proposal 1.

I think we should really ask ourselves what we would do if we could start
with a clean slate and try "approximate" that by tweaking the RFC in that
direction. There may be *some* situations where we have to fall back to say
how it should be done (no duplicates names in objects) but acknowledging
that, due to historic reasons, there are implementations which do it
differently. If we do that too often, however, I don't see any value in this
exercise and we should stop it.


> Proposal 1:
> 
> In section 2.2 (Grammar -> Objects):
>   No change
> In section 4 (Parsers):
>   Add: "If a parser encounters an object with duplicate names, the
> parser MUST use only the last
>   name/value pair that has the duplicate name.
> In section 5 (Generators):
>   Add: "The names within an object SHOULD be unique."
> 
> Proposal 2:
> 
> Same as Proposal 1 *except* that a second sentence is added for section
> 4: "A parser that streams
>   its outputs MUST fail to finish parsing if it encounters more than
> one name/value pair with the
>   same name."
> 
> _______________________________________________
> json mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json