- From: Kari hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>
- Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 09:35:34 +0300 (EEST)
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- CC: Kari hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>, HTTP working group mailing list <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>: (Fri Jul 1 00:50:37 2016) > On 1 July 2016 at 06:25, Kari hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org> wrote: > > " A client MAY treate http-opportunistic invalid as whole if it includes > > duplicate member names on some object. A client SHOULD NOT use the origin > > object, if it includes duplicate member names. " > > Isn't the first part implied by us using JSON? After all, the text > you quoted from 7159 makes it apparent that duplicate member names > risks generating an error. More or less. It is also "SHOULD". > I'm happy to include this for the second part, though I'm also happy > to leave it on the basis that we're not doing anything special with > origin object members. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7159#section-4 | The names within an object SHOULD be unique. This is requirement for generating http-opportunistic, but perhaps there should be text in case where that generator requirement is not followed. Seems that it can be considered to be JSON when member names are not unique. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-encryption-06#section-6 | o That response's payload, when parsed as JSON [RFC7159], contains | an object as the root, and So this alone does not make it, I think. / Kari Hurtta
Received on Friday, 1 July 2016 06:36:16 UTC