Re: [Json] Counterproposal #2 on work items

"Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <jhildebr@cisco.com> Thu, 21 February 2013 19:05 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 83A5D21F8EED for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 11:05:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.576
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.576 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.023, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 Z4PqjDShwhFy for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 11:05:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.86.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4F3621F8EA1 for <json@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 11:05:04 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=816; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1361473505; x=1362683105; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=i0IpV2kDyCRPUw6Xjg8afn1jf91oahIMm/fWq3Qb+A0=; b=NkWYdhLYatiKBNk0fIz4e06C4T+bVUkssZsLGa2uonGQflNLn0rIp/mX 4JHfG1Cd77ycrw1Dr8htWe3naKR1f808JdhdIJ8h7RReCxa3YVTRq/hEy kYwTkWYQ8SKpn3vCppRpgdmexdO6798zztZfFibKkfXZhnnywDHO6difl 0=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: At0FANNuJlGtJXG+/2dsb2JhbABFhge7A4EFFnOCIQEEOj8SAQgiFDERJQIEAQ0FCId4Aw+1fQ2JO4w3giYxB4JfYQOUWo0lhRWDB4In
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,711,1355097600"; d="scan'208";a="179537814"
Received: from rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com ([173.37.113.190]) by rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 21 Feb 2013 19:05:04 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x11.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x11.cisco.com [173.37.183.85]) by rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r1LJ54OU017960 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 21 Feb 2013 19:05:04 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com ([169.254.15.195]) by xhc-rcd-x11.cisco.com ([173.37.183.85]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 13:05:04 -0600
From: "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <jhildebr@cisco.com>
To: Robert Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>, Cyrus Daboo <cyrus@daboo.name>
Thread-Topic: [Json] Counterproposal #2 on work items
Thread-Index: AQHOD5RjTUz37iGayUSEf11jvGkoDJiDigUAgAAJN4CAAAE8AP//jVSAgAB4awCAAEwcgIAAAmQAgAAtKoCAAAN/AIAAEQOAgAByZAA=
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 19:05:04 +0000
Message-ID: <A723FC6ECC552A4D8C8249D9E07425A70F89DCF8@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAChr6Syimm2whKGVD2rtXimV5k59_wO8_=9EQ4fOWF=BRCUroA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.1.130117
x-originating-ip: [10.129.24.68]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <83BBC4C968BF38408361571F5761CD99@cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: Vinny A <jsontest@yahoo.com>, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, Francis Galiegue <fgaliegue@gmail.com>, "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] Counterproposal #2 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: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 19:05:05 -0000

On 2/20/13 10:15 PM, "Robert Sayre" <sayrer@gmail.com> wrote:

>There is a lack of interoperability, and this issue is one of the smaller
>points. The larger point is that the JS implementations (and many smaller
>ones) have no incentive to change their behavior, and what they do is
>reasonable. Let's just
> do that.

How about text like this for section 2.2:

"The names within an object SHOULD be unique.  Applications and protocols
built on top of JSON SHOULD require names within an object to be unique,
specifying an error condition when this constraint is broken.  However, if
multiple instances of a name are allowed by a particular usage of JSON,
the value for the last member in the input serialization with the same
name MUST be used as the value for that name."

-- 
Joe Hildebrand