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

Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> Wed, 03 July 2013 21:43 UTC

Return-Path: <tbray@textuality.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 60C1711E8262 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 14:43:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.976
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 VjpWrnSZ0IlC for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 14:43:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-la0-f43.google.com (mail-la0-f43.google.com [209.85.215.43]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 058FC11E8261 for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 14:43:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-la0-f43.google.com with SMTP id gw10so619630lab.30 for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 03 Jul 2013 14:43:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=Kf0lWBA8PACSSxfDi0AFZj3rWr0ngk2mnyTMgfeAw9E=; b=oy31SRo6/Ye/RKDvwSab3eTz5tNOVw2omYf0kBwvRa/oXq45X/1JsO/IZ55NgO0rSE NVpnsReUHFxnge4iqwohtFdfIxc7eCvsFMOtPgypLaHNFwR3//PyckBEj69S99oS8Ccu 3v+HcB+vZVMqDErUh1drW6Ic8/QnvtsRIyiF73reXASRJRziCpv6U9mOR4M7H/i5/0Ms Z2rG4d/aXpuiSi/0jziLfE2JK6es1HTW5FlEc3dWaTpeCz474dnc6qmgnL4VOs3eGRTq uTNxnK5hxPCdfBIHYqR2PQwBJG5YNJksQtULIxQj4rI4p3rDqv1GQg9SQDUoc3aE3qKU dt0g==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.8.198 with SMTP id t6mr1411927laa.36.1372887798465; Wed, 03 Jul 2013 14:43:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.114.71.51 with HTTP; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 14:43:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [209.121.225.216]
In-Reply-To: <CAK3OfOjCG2U48x-CHWEWZDf6WU3VJVT_kX5f-f7-sehrVYOfhg@mail.gmail.com>
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> <CAHBU6is6LsU9CpNMqYhEmovdiVey7ZQS8VTg5O+DU5me3Kk29g@mail.gmail.com> <CAK3OfOjCG2U48x-CHWEWZDf6WU3VJVT_kX5f-f7-sehrVYOfhg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 14:43:18 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHBU6isGEq1qu-Yn68fJ6=rbFe77yRx-W1uBshsJCFVfUHqmTg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
To: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0153844a8b672b04e0a259fa
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnekrY9B0dm89uyHmg8mQHAlPEkaeb6fKteR49L9Ba6BTNjqridwYcBs959v0yIicNOoFJ4
Cc: Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>, John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>, "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 21:43:27 -0000

There’s no need to mention streaming; to start with, we’d have to define a
bunch of terms.

Say, as the RFC does, that you SHOULD NOT emit duplicates because it leads
to variable results, and also note that there is software in the world that
nonetheless does, possibly note that ECMA allows it, and say that receiving
software SHOULD do last-dupe-wins.  JSON is what JSON is.

For “Internet JSON”, it’s a different argument. -T


On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 1:11 PM, John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Pete Resnick scripsit:
> >>
> >> > So I don't think saying RECOMMENDED or SHOULD regarding not
> >> > producing duplicates should be seen as a non-starter. That's a
> >> > defensible position for the WG to take.
> >>
> >> +1.  The only person saying otherwise right now is Tim, and he grants
> >> that he is only concerned with a single use case.
>
> > Hm?  I’m perfectly OK with a minimal edit leaving most things as they are
> > and just pointing out potential interop gotchas.   JSON is what JSON is.
> > For a BCP doc or “Internet JSON” profile, it’s a different story.  -T
>
> I think John thought that you wanted a strict "MUST NOT have dup
> names" requirement, but if you'd just settle for an out for streaming
> generators/parsers, pushing the non-dup name responsibility up a layer
> (or three) then maybe we could just all agree.
>
> Nico
> --
>