IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <jhildebr@cisco.com> Mon, 08 July 2013 06:35 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 0DF4311E819A for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Jul 2013 23:35:14 -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 l0NctQE5xbXJ for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Jul 2013 23:35:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1C3421F9A57 for <json@ietf.org>; Sun, 7 Jul 2013 23:35:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=535; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1373265307; x=1374474907; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=i0YsTyqttOBQTuPTgMkgme7b7VfEB1YWHFcgxxz0TO8=; b=k9zErTBx8jLxN7b8XjWUHBxosPBgtUEPxGgfMYBRMd3nGvvoRfiS5xEC 8LnQ2EGnPQUPCDZlmODEp60u4ksiLmmjfqSY/mISQxlLjsdDZFbEBcCih NoYkl/nr+xeF4nYfdlK7PQnAhXBz7Qk85RsiNq3YgkU6hDWieEsI0lZLE 8=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AmgFAINc2lGtJV2Z/2dsb2JhbABZgwl/gkG+H4ENFnSCJQEEOlEBCA4UFEIlAgQBEgiHdQMPr0oNiFGNAII6OIMHaQOpG4MRgig
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,1016,1363132800"; d="scan'208";a="231933191"
Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 08 Jul 2013 06:35:07 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x07.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x07.cisco.com [173.36.12.81]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r686Z794027324 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 8 Jul 2013 06:35:07 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com ([169.254.15.56]) by xhc-aln-x07.cisco.com ([173.36.12.81]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 01:35:07 -0500
From: "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <jhildebr@cisco.com>
To: Stephan Beal <sgbeal@googlemail.com>, "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Json] Proposed minimal change for duplicate names in objects
Thread-Index: AQJvUTXGqIW3iuu0l9rzv3fxldJ4PQL8G24kAqTixrQBjIQJ6gH4Oee+l81ZmFCAAHeBAIAAErYAgAEZ/QCAAGtUgA==
Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2013 06:35:06 +0000
Message-ID: <A723FC6ECC552A4D8C8249D9E07425A70FC829CB@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKd4nAhMfz_NAFL4YmLFX_=69JizWoPvLac+1_yr0K2LJap3DQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.5.130515
x-originating-ip: [10.21.124.54]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <5E148D4623E96540B064723B48E5022A@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
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: Mon, 08 Jul 2013 06:35:14 -0000

On 7/7/13 12:09 PM, "Stephan Beal" <sgbeal@googlemail.com> wrote:

>Specify the duplicate keys as poor practice leading to
>unspecified/implementation-defined behaviour, and be done it.

I went in to this conversation really wanting to move to MUST. I've now
been convinced that strong language about how awful duplicates are is the
best we can do, so +1.

I don't want people to be able to read the text and argue with a straight
face that their protocol is "legal" when it's just poorly designed.

-- 
Joe Hildebrand

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email