Is there a standard on JSON naming?
I see most examples using all lower case separated by underscore, aka snake_case
, but can it be used PascalCase
or camelCase
as well?

- 9,070
- 7
- 57
- 49

- 7,819
- 8
- 26
- 38
-
39I was curious what some industry leaders chose. Twitter and Facebook API's use snake_case while Microsoft and Google use camelCase. – Justin May 02 '16 at 21:38
-
11@Justin that is because Twitter is using Ruby and Facebook is using PHP. Ruby and PHP are into snake_case. Microsoft and Google are well using C/.NET and Java respectively. Oh that's right .Net and Java are into camelCase maybe. [It's all about the conventions of the programming languages](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5543490/json-naming-convention/25368854#25368854) – Abel Callejo Dec 12 '17 at 22:56
-
2There is no standard, but the convention seems to be to use the standard of the technology of the receiving system. – Martin of Hessle Feb 08 '19 at 11:45
-
3All are correct there is no stringent convention for names/keys in JSON. Though, I highly recommend to avoid kebab-case as it cannot be accessed by dot(.) notation in javascript and has to be accessed using array[] notation which I think is tedious. – saurabh Jul 05 '19 at 02:16
-
If you are sending JSON from a web browser, it might make sense to use kebab-case. This is because the data will likely be coming from an HTML form, and each key will be derived from the name of the form element, which will be a CSS name, which uses kebab-case by convention. – Max888 Jun 29 '20 at 23:00
-
2From my experience for JSON snake_case is more appropriate. 1. Using camel case you lose the casing in many databases or may need special handling. For instance, Cassandra CQL is case-insensitive. If you were to map this JSON to DB records, makes sense to use snake_sase. 2. Hyphen is considered a special char in many languages and not accepted in names. – Bikas Katwal Jul 13 '21 at 07:40
-
Zalando declares some rules: https://opensource.zalando.com/restful-api-guidelines/#130, https://opensource.zalando.com/restful-api-guidelines/#118, so if you generally follow these Zalando rules it might be clear for you – phirzel Dec 20 '21 at 12:55
7 Answers
In this document Google JSON Style Guide (recommendations for building JSON APIs at Google),
It recommends that:
Property names must be camelCased, ASCII strings.
The first character must be a letter, an underscore (_), or a dollar sign ($).
Example:
{
"thisPropertyIsAnIdentifier": "identifier value"
}
My team consistently follows this convention when building REST APIs. There are some reasons:
- First, the JSON convention should be independent of the programming languages because we want our APIs to be consistent doesn't matter whether there are some APIs implemented using a
camelCase
language (e.g. Java), some others usingsnake_case
language (e.g. Python). - Also, most of our clients are webapp so
camelCase
is preferred - If the client prefers
snake_case
, it still can easily convert data betweensnake_case
andcamelCase
(with the help of libraries)
But I agree that if all the applications use the same type of language (e.g. snake_case
), the JSON convention should also follow.

- 23,158
- 6
- 60
- 47
-
3Can someone explain why and when you would use an underscore to prefix a property name? A reference would be useful, not just an opinion. – Sean Glover Jul 29 '15 at 19:16
-
1@SeanGlover, when creating Javascript "classes", some people people start "private" methods/properties with an underscore. I find in inheritance scenarios, it's much simpler to delineate an instance method as private by using an "_" rather than using a complex system of extending prototypes with closures to mimic classical inheritance's private instance method behavior. – johnsimer Nov 20 '15 at 22:03
-
@Grant Your example is not in camel Case right? { "ThisPropertyIsAnIdentifier": "identifier value" } – Madura Pradeep Oct 17 '16 at 07:34
-
3@MaduraPradeep ProperCase is also camel case, sometimes called UpperCamelCase. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camel_case – raspacorp Nov 30 '16 at 14:36
-
20citing Google is not a propper answer. they just support a certain convention/guideline and it looks to be java making sense as they are pretty java oriented. – Thomas Andreè Wang Jun 29 '17 at 12:54
-
4Also a hot topic here https://github.com/json-api/json-api/pull/1247 – garrettmac Dec 25 '17 at 19:16
-
5This does not answer the question. This is just one of many style guides, and there are many other style guides mandating either snake_case, PascalCase and camelCase. Citing your own team's preference is irrelevant. Abel's answer below is a much better answer to the question. – Mathias-S Sep 27 '19 at 06:53
-
this answer is specific to what Google uses and not recommended by any standard. – rkachach Feb 27 '23 at 11:59
ECMA-404
The JSON syntax does not impose any restrictions on the strings used as names,...
There is no standard naming of keys in JSON and that camelCase or snake_case should work fine.
TL;DR
Here is a rule-of-a-thumb which I think most of the developers use.
Technology stack | Naming convention | Reason/guide |
---|---|---|
Python » JSON » Python | snake_case | Unanimous |
Python » JSON » PHP | snake_case | Unanimous |
Python » JSON » Java | snake_case or camelCase | Lean on where the business logic resides. Take advantage of the extrinsic style of Java. |
Python » JSON » back‑end JavaScript | snake_case or camelCase | Lean on where the business logic resides. |
Python » JSON » front‑end JavaScript | snake_case | Screw the front-end anyway |
Python » JSON » you do not know | snake_case | Screw the parser anyway |
PHP » JSON » Python | snake_case | Unanimous |
PHP » JSON » PHP | snake_case | Unanimous |
PHP » JSON » Java | snake_case or camelCase | Lean on where the business logic resides. Take advantage of the extrinsic style of Java. |
PHP » JSON » back‑end JavaScript | snake_case or camelCase | Lean on where the business logic resides. |
PHP » JSON » front‑end JavaScript | snake_case | Screw the front-end anyway |
PHP » JSON » you do not know | snake_case | Screw the parser anyway |
Java » JSON » Python | camelCase or snake_case | Lean on where the business logic resides. Take advantage of the extrinsic style of Java. |
Java » JSON » PHP | camelCase or snake_case | Lean on where the business logic resides. Take advantage of the extrinsic style of Java. |
Java » JSON » Java | camelCase | Unanimous |
Java » JSON » JavaScript | camelCase | Unanimous |
Java » JSON » you do not know | camelCase | Screw the parser anyway |
back‑end JavaScript » JSON » Python | camelCase or snake_case | Lean on where the business logic resides. |
front‑end JavaScript » JSON » Python | snake_case | Screw the front-end anyway |
back‑end JavaScript » JSON » PHP | camelCase or snake_case | Lean on where the business logic resides. |
front‑end JavaScript » JSON » PHP | snake_case | Screw the front-end anyway |
JavaScript » JSON » Java | camelCase | Unanimous |
JavaScript » JSON » JavaScript | camelCase | Original |
JavaScript » JSON » you do not know | camelCase | Screw the parser anyway |
Driving factors
Imposing a naming convention is very confusing because JSON alone does not impose a standard. However, this can easily be figured out if you break it down into components.
JSON generator
Programming language | Naming convention |
---|---|
Python | snake_case |
PHP | snake_case |
Java | camelCase |
JavaScript | camelCase |
JSON parser
Programming language | Naming convention |
---|---|
Python | snake_case |
PHP | snake_case |
Java | camelCase |
JavaScript | camelCase |
Bulk of business logic
You have to decide which side has the heavier business logic, is it the JSON generator side or the JSON parser side?
Natural belongingness
Programming language | Natural belongingness |
---|---|
Python | intrinsic |
PHP | intrinsic |
Java | extrinsic |
JavaScript | intrinsic |
Intrinsic - Programming language where JSON is accessed naturally similar to accessing native objects and arrays.
Extrinsic - Programming language where JSON is accessed differently than accessing native objects and arrays. Below is an example of Java's com.google.gson
package:
/**
* Using a method to access a property instead of using the standard 'dot.syntax'
*/
JsonElement.getAsString("snake_cased_key");
Some actual implementations
- Google Maps JavaScript API - camelCased
- Facebook JavaScript API - snake_cased
- Amazon Web Services - snake_cased & camelCased
- Twitter API - snake_cased
- JSON-LD - camelCased
Conclusions
Choosing the right JSON naming convention for your JSON implementation depends on your technology stack. There are cases where you can use snake_case, camelCase, or any other naming convention.
Another thing to consider is the weight to be put on the JSON-generator vs the JSON-parser and/or the front-end JavaScript. In general, more weight should be put on business logic side.
Also, if the JSON-parser side is unknown then you can declare what ever can work for you.

- 13,779
- 10
- 69
- 84
-
4
-
1@stoft that's probably because they also followed the convention of schema.org. Starting the key with a capital letter means that it is a vocabulary entity. Starting the key with lowercase letter means that is a vocabulary property. – Abel Callejo Mar 17 '16 at 01:05
-
-
After some long while, I updated this answer with considerations on the issue mentioned up by @stoft – Abel Callejo Nov 06 '16 at 21:51
-
CamelCase and camelCase are both camel case, the former is sometimes called UpperCamelCase or ProperCase. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camel_case – raspacorp Nov 30 '16 at 14:35
-
I think google doesn't have a standard, the places API use snake_case for example. https://developers.google.com/places/web-service/search – David Martinez Oct 09 '17 at 07:37
-
The google maps mentioned above is a JavaScript library using *camelCase* while the google places as mentioned by @DavidMartinez is a web service that can return json-formatted data is of *snake_case*. I agree, maybe google doesn't have a standard naming convention for JSON. – Abel Callejo Oct 09 '17 at 08:46
-
4I disagree with these ideas, simply because Python backend > Java frontend should be camelCase, but then you add Python frontend and you have compromised backend and one frontend. It should be how backend has it by "standard". Frontend parsers have it easier to adapt anyway – Bojan Kogoj Apr 01 '18 at 10:02
-
@BojanKogoj I also doubted that part of my answer. Your comment verifies that the answer had awful flaws. I will make edits on that part. – Abel Callejo Apr 02 '18 at 03:18
-
11My concern here is that there is reference to "your technology" stack. A producer of JSON especially if to served up by a HTTP server should have no knowledge of who or what is consuming it, or for what reasons. If JSON is used as a method of communication between many producers and consumers, then the technology stack of the producer should not be a consideration. – Robbie Wareham May 14 '18 at 16:15
-
3@RobbieWareham I somehow agree on that. The thing here is that "by standards" there isnt an official naming convention. So with that, maybe one should opt for "by de facto" which is to look at the technology stack. I think looking into the technology stack is the best way to go. Take a look at facebook, did they historically honor JavaScript and use snakeCase? Nah! They chose to stick with PHP's snake_case. – Abel Callejo May 14 '18 at 22:56
-
@AbelMelquiadesCallejo Fair point, and possibly reasons for an official naming convention. It would make all this easier! – Robbie Wareham May 15 '18 at 10:23
-
1While I somewhat agree with your answer. I'm not comfortable with choice reasons being "make sense" and "screw front end". Big reasons why back-end naming conventions have more weight in JSON naming style is because it naturally tend to create more than read these structs, and also matching naming style cuts A LOT of silly mapping code, making things simpler in a delicate piece of the app. Front-end frameworks and libs are more flexible in that aspect and mistakes would "just" result in a UI bug. – Andre Figueiredo Jan 27 '19 at 04:22
-
Also public API's play a big role, where they natural choice is obviously go rather with the same naming convention of the language that manipulates than complicating things. – Andre Figueiredo Jan 27 '19 at 04:26
-
1C# is conventionally *camelCased* so it should be pretty similar to those above with **Java** entries – Abel Callejo Feb 06 '19 at 04:49
-
the official RFC does not talk about any convention: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8259 – Daniele Dellafiore Mar 04 '19 at 09:30
-
-
There's also CLI, which is overwhelmingly kebab case. I always kebab case for CLI and then convert to the relevant casing (snake or camel) when producing JSON. – CMCDragonkai Mar 14 '19 at 01:16
-
@CMCDragonkai I'm not so sure about that *kebab-case* CLI. Are you referring to shell or bash? AFAIK, the dash sign for them is a subtraction operator. Also, this is a bit confusing because even the PLs I listed all have CLI counterparts which are not kebab-case related. Much better if you could mention the binary/library/tool you are using. – Abel Callejo Mar 14 '19 at 02:40
-
There is no SINGLE standard, but I have seen 3 styles you mention ("Pascal/Microsoft", "Java" (camelCase
) and "C" (underscores, snake_case
)) -- as well as at least one more, kebab-case
like longer-name
).
It mostly seems to depend on what background developers of the service in question had; those with c/c++ background (or languages that adopt similar naming, which includes many scripting languages, ruby etc) often choose underscore variant; and rest similarly (Java vs .NET). Jackson library that was mentioned, for example, assumes Java bean naming convention (camelCase
)
UPDATE: my definition of "standard" is a SINGLE convention. So while one could claim "yes, there are many standards", to me there are multiple Naming Conventions
, none of which is "The" standard overall. One of them could be considered the standard for specific platform, but given that JSON is used for interoperability between platforms that may or may not make much sense.

- 113,358
- 34
- 211
- 239
-
8Sticking with the background of the devs is important, but JSON sticks with the Javascript standard. Your first statement isn't quite correct. But definately stick with the naming conventions of your team. – Anubian Noob Jan 20 '15 at 01:32
-
10It would be interesting to see some statistics, as there is constant friction between people who claim connection between JSON and Javascript (beyond just historical heritage), and those who think there is little currently that connects JSON to Javascript. I belong to the latter camp. But I would be interested in knowing relative usage patterns. – StaxMan Jan 20 '15 at 18:09
-
4@StaxMan C# uses PascalCase in the majority of cases, not camelCase. – ArtOfCode Dec 09 '16 at 23:16
-
@ArtOfCode yes. What is your point? (also, pascal-case sometimes called "upper camel case") – StaxMan Dec 09 '16 at 23:22
-
1@StaxMan would you consider updating your answer to include mention of Googles Style Guide – garrettmac Dec 25 '17 at 19:17
-
-
1@mannedear nothing in JSON spec prevents that so sure. It could be considered yet another naming convention. :) – StaxMan Jun 09 '22 at 16:30
Notably for me on NodeJS, if I'm working with databases and my field names are underscore separated, I also use them in the struct keys.
This is because db fields have a lot of acronyms/abbreviations so something like appSNSInterfaceRRTest looks a bit messy but app_sns_interface_rr_test is nicer.
In Javascript variables are all camelCase and class names (constructors) are ProperCase, so you'd see something like
var devTask = {
task_id: 120,
store_id: 2118,
task_name: 'generalLedger'
};
or
generalLedgerTask = new GeneralLedgerTask( devTask );
And of course in JSON keys/strings are wrapped in double quotes, but then you just use the JSON.stringify and pass in JS objects, so don't need to worry about that.
I struggled with this a bit until I found this happy medium between JSON and JS naming conventions.

- 3,874
- 2
- 25
- 29
-
1same here. Receiving JSON with snake_case at Android client looks awkward !! Also database doesn't differentiate casing for the column names, so snake_case seems to be best for database. – mythicalcoder May 07 '17 at 17:13
-
@mythicalcoder JSON in Java is not intrinsic in its core. Java only uses external packages for parsing Java e.g. `org.json` , `gson`. Recieving snake_case data doesn't hurt that much like so... `JSONObject.get('snake_case_key_here')` – Abel Callejo Jan 31 '19 at 22:59
Seems that there's enough variation that people go out of their way to allow conversion from all conventions to others: http://www.cowtowncoder.com/blog/archives/cat_json.html
Notably, the mentioned Jackson JSON parser prefers bean_naming
.

- 2,481
- 15
- 15
-
8Minor correction: Jackson defaults to Java bean naming convention, which is (lower) Camel Case, like `beanNaming`. – StaxMan Dec 09 '16 at 23:24
I think that there isn't a official naming convention to JSON, but you can follow some industry leaders to see how it is working.
Google, which is one of the biggest IT company of the world, has a JSON style guide: https://google.github.io/styleguide/jsoncstyleguide.xml
Taking advantage, you can find other styles guide, which Google defines, here: https://github.com/google/styleguide

- 5,329
- 5
- 32
- 42
As others have stated there is no standard so you should choose one yourself. Here are a couple of things to consider when doing so:
If you are using JavaScript to consume JSON then using the same naming convention for properties in both will provide visual consistency and possibly some opportunities for cleaner code re-use.
A small reason to avoid kebab-case is that the hyphens may clash visually with
-
characters that appear in values.{ "bank-balance": -10 }

- 165
- 4
- 11
-
3
-
a reason to avoid kebab-case is that they're not treated as one word. so you cannot e.g. double click with the mouse to select the entire key. – szaman Aug 11 '23 at 08:51