Re: [Json] The names within an object SHOULD be unique.

"Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <jhildebr@cisco.com> Thu, 06 June 2013 03:45 UTC

Return-Path: <jhildebr@cisco.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 E39E721F9485 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Jun 2013 20:45:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 UvObtJX-WikJ for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Jun 2013 20:44:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39D5821F944F for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Jun 2013 20:44:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=467; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1370490299; x=1371699899; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=URK7ct46/2huPh+Bv6o+cDZzM+YFJHaMG4URwxPbqsE=; b=bL+eSKOPmEJ94IUg1rtFl5N0RcqSFUu+Qp5TkZSm5rm0JUUjCc518mW4 gUjXkzI5lcJYmprNaKvPLNPR3rtYUyX57H0n4HsteX9QLZRQwZonx0TzU 8funJLDhcRuFMKCJY0LEuv5uitHHHTOTRHEXCCk5hBflWk/0ckxt3fXd5 Y=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AogFAGYFsFGtJXHB/2dsb2JhbABZgwmDJbxLfhZ0giUBBDo/EgEIDhQUQiUCBAENBQiIBbw3jnoxB4J6YQOof4MPgic
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,811,1363132800"; d="scan'208";a="219381119"
Received: from rcdn-core2-6.cisco.com ([173.37.113.193]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 06 Jun 2013 03:44:53 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com [173.36.12.85]) by rcdn-core2-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r563irWH020273 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 6 Jun 2013 03:44:53 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com ([169.254.15.56]) by xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com ([173.36.12.85]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Wed, 5 Jun 2013 22:44:53 -0500
From: "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <jhildebr@cisco.com>
To: Matthew Morley <matt@mpcm.com>, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
Thread-Topic: [Json] The names within an object SHOULD be unique.
Thread-Index: AQHOYlj/f+f4Zs3CA0O//LSHQrFFDJkn+vCA
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2013 03:44:53 +0000
Message-ID: <A723FC6ECC552A4D8C8249D9E07425A70FC2E2BD@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOXDeqrnnZcoXtdwZof4QZbHXAxWtR_agF=foyCAOjEyXAvnPw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.4.130416
x-originating-ip: [10.21.147.108]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <68B02348ECCED7458B0AFFB8336A2535@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: Stephan Beal <sgbeal@googlemail.com>, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>, "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] The names within an object SHOULD be unique.
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: Thu, 06 Jun 2013 03:45:05 -0000

On 6/5/13 7:56 PM, "Matthew Morley" <matt@mpcm.com> wrote:

>The best way to handle 'comments' is to have them be first class citizens
>in the data. It is a topic that goes back a long way, and since they were
>removed with intention then, using ambiguity in the specification to
>re-add them seems like a poor approach
> now.

Do you have a backward-compatible proposal?  I can't think of one, but
that doesn't make it impossible.

-- 
Joe Hildebrand