bug: additional properties on `property` type in JSON about specification

[stevespringett]

Thanks for reporting @agschrei . Fix will be included in the upcoming v1.6 specification.

[jkowalleck]

checked, can confirm for JSON:

• name optional
• value optional
• additional properties allowed
• see

  specification/schema/bom-1.4.schema.json

  Lines 1147 to 1162 in 8af880d

  	"property": {
  	"type": "object",
  	"title": "Lightweight name-value pair",
  	"properties": {
  	"name": {
  	"type": "string",
  	"title": "Name",
  	"description": "The name of the property. Duplicate names are allowed, each potentially having a different value."
  	},
  	"value": {
  	"type": "string",
  	"title": "Value",
  	"description": "The value of the property."
  	}
  	}
  	},

in contrast to the JSON, the XML defines

• name is mandatory
• value is implicit kind of optional (implicit allows empty string)
• no additional properties/children allowed
• see

  specification/schema/bom-1.4.xsd

  Lines 1721 to 1734 in 8af880d

  	<xs:complexType name="propertyType">
  	<xs:annotation>
  	<xs:documentation>Specifies an individual property with a name and value.</xs:documentation>
  	</xs:annotation>
  	<xs:simpleContent>
  	<xs:extension base="xs:normalizedString">
  	<xs:attribute name="name" type="xs:string" use="required">
  	<xs:annotation>
  	<xs:documentation>The name of the property. Duplicate names are allowed, each potentially having a different value.</xs:documentation>
  	</xs:annotation>
  	</xs:attribute>
  	</xs:extension>
  	</xs:simpleContent>
  	</xs:complexType>

in contrast to JSON, the Protobuff defines

• name is mandatory
• value is optional
• no additional properties/children allowed
• see

  specification/schema/bom-1.5.proto

  Lines 606 to 609 in 8af880d

  	message Property {
  	string name = 1;
  	optional string value = 2;
  	}

[jkowalleck]

@stevespringett if the XML & ProtoBuff are the intended solutions,
should I target a bug fix of the JSON for the upcoming v1.6 then?

[stevespringett]

Yes please. Thanks @jkowalleck

[agschrei]

Thanks to both of you for the quick turnaround on this!