Re: [Json] Duplicate names: are they erroneous or not?

Stefan Drees <> Sun, 07 July 2013 10:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38AB421F9EE0 for <>; Sun, 7 Jul 2013 03:23:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.949
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AMFN4OzX+-vn for <>; Sun, 7 Jul 2013 03:23:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32DB721F9EDC for <>; Sun, 7 Jul 2013 03:23:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) by (mrweb001) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0LuMER-1UFGFw2D7H-011msJ; Sun, 07 Jul 2013 12:23:00 +0200
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2013 12:22:58 +0200
From: Stefan Drees <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: John Cowan <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <00cd01ce7a9f$19adeaa0$4d09bfe0$> <00d701ce7aa6$cc5fe700$651fb500$> <> <00e401ce7ad5$00991c20$01cb5460$> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:0mnC9ST4e41ciBa/5B5HLFRSEDih1plRD5HwW9xxrCdb50oGxvK DjJRrRknw18NIUNsqQRBRE9M7VyJIvg1gH9ZWSymev4Bl9Z9s/8+S1f3doFmYsxgYwO1ANY iHm/LIqtnCpuCWFi4mLTjJxJ8uHcjwFIbitQdJnSIqMhBldq6sMb7yB5/BwH54TYHIqhPCH ZPxJ/LqTksA9wKjjjifOQ==
Cc: 'Nico Williams' <>, Jim Schaad <>,
Subject: Re: [Json] Duplicate names: are they erroneous or not?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2013 10:23:11 -0000

On 2013-07-07 07:53 +02:00, John Cowan wrote:
> What I wish to avoid is a specification that says that having two
> fields of the same name in an object is a perfectly okay thing to do.
> In other words, such documents for my purposes have to be erroneous,
> rather than a legitimate way of encoding multimaps.  Is there anyone
> who can't live with that restriction?

If the above question is equivalent to:

Does someone speak up, that MUST encode multimaps through members in an 
object, where the names are not pairwise distinct?

I for myself will **not** speeak up. But that is neither necessary nor 
sufficient for this important pre condition of going further as 
described i your second paragraph below.

Maybe it might good to request, that the chairs at this point - or not 
too far in the future - start such a consensus preparing call?

> If there isn't anyone, then we can talk about whether this is an error
> that generators and/or parsers MUST or SHOULD detect.  But if we can't
> even get consensus on that much, it's futile to discuss parser or
> generator behavior.

I need not consider any mandate - like the WG - only the rules for 
participating in these discussions, and I am willing to evolve the JSON 
into a versatile future proof data interchange format, as long as it 
doesn't mutate into the serialization format of just another specific 
language culture.

{"Scene":[{"Me":"All"},{"Dog":"(wags his tail)"},{"Me":"the Best."}]}