Re: [apps-discuss] JSON Schema considered harmful
Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com> Wed, 19 September 2012 23:06 UTC
Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE81621F8510 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:06:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.303, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qFkjkbyG1pW3 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:06:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com (mail-iy0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2B0521F84FA for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:06:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iabz21 with SMTP id z21so1343505iab.31 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:06:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=ig5bef46DfV8/uYJ26fDY8eIZiOEdTN+UaRdCjWak9A=; b=Pqrk43GZfL/iMPsuwbX8BwBUwumf5wc+OPvrdm0oJU3T3agKinBKcp2vIp+v1vLK+x 8WJlZxn4ouZnhx3QjSXgKPEXwUO9Fzeaes8QmDOJ0F+pdQ+5+E2VcnRztO2b9kst6pG/ wDISos4VkqylGmJPS0N4iYsJuaNR2XImeMoa3NeVJ6rNJsBbyg4SakfkOBfDhNYNq8M2 oGpKZbEF9rNSxgdbtNBbCARMlQ3m86qAoAPfrV1nCuLHlO7aHQ4hHflsj1WeOtSTV2Ai urozfZVIUkuhXCe2nFRh+xaa1nhb6mHwwKZYV6tvchM/1RJcQBRRbLr/V5k8h72JZzYo R/hg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.182.145.35 with SMTP id sr3mr3983098obb.98.1348096015226; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:06:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.76.29.50 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:06:55 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABP7Rbe5fKDSh9eke=Ems+HBTRurxKvD-cpXB4StG6XCYErC6A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMm+LwjYj0gd3Cxjj8WFcLy-zgBwfVDCPaRGcNSgOHD9m_07yw@mail.gmail.com> <CALcybBCqAMLi8v61u1+oPpHaMpHrK4ufUm6fUUyMb8XMmz8JSg@mail.gmail.com> <CAMm+LwiyohqhRA+m3M0ViSkt74q3yOfUkZj8b-upc4V_qUv22g@mail.gmail.com> <CALcybBCBScuO797yBmY3c_wRUa98=DYwN2rXXbq41pE2GHK4vw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMm+LwgQLc8v+V7JhEr4zEw37e0ovrUkFy0RZKOszg1FbkMjeA@mail.gmail.com> <CALcybBDkOOfWq-qzR-6mtU8TULcp4BfS0h=WRKJZDSh+G8M9zw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMm+LwgNZuLYvyhayA2JQtH36e05HJWbdkKUt6yei10p5p-XRA@mail.gmail.com> <CALcybBAwYPGep4QMGK1Bx0SSmB=yTXRbjH9VGPZ0MKHcQzr_Mw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMm+LwgJRAK6k_xp1Zky84owtWDD7m7ptZJpFsGwe80ikVmQBQ@mail.gmail.com> <CALcybBA0TqoO6Xdf02wM6=6HJeGokRVdxOQ2_SUmVBqxtNZOCw@mail.gmail.com> <CAK3OfOgxaUvMOHDemXbThECsOvAgfkUhttiTwmuyNDe533Ywtg@mail.gmail.com> <CABP7Rbe5fKDSh9eke=Ems+HBTRurxKvD-cpXB4StG6XCYErC6A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 19:06:55 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMm+LwjM3pRzCy51ELhn5KXpwoUaXVVoOgF-EYPjgwcaCV+SeA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f46d044630781c559004ca1610ac"
Cc: IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] JSON Schema considered harmful
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 23:06:57 -0000
IDs are not finished products but that does not entitle Mr insults-a-lot to attack me for not having read a version of the ID that has not been submitted yet. I made comments on the version of the ID they submitted. It is overly complex and solves a problem that in my experience does not exist. In response I was attacked as an imbecile and accused of not reading their spec. Now it might just be me but I think that being a board member of Github does not entitle people to go round calling people imbeciles if they are not capable of mind reading. Now I did overlook the statement in the introduction to RFC 4627 stating that objects can appear in any order. But that is not where I would expect to find a normative statement and I don't think many others would. I don't think that excuses Mr Galiegue's behavior. A schema is a useful tool for writing specifications and as an input to coding tools. The spec in question seems to be designed to support schema validation and nothing else. Which is really weird since schema validation has not been found to be particularly useful in the XML world. The constraints that can be described in a schema tend to be a subset of the constraints that are needed by applications. So applications tend to end up having to repeat the schema validation. On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 6:17 PM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 ... as much as I would hate to jump into the middle of this pissing > match, let's not forget that IDs are not finished products. If there have > been incremental updates to the spec since it was last published, please > post the update so it can be properly reviewed.... even if its not yet done. > On Sep 19, 2012 3:11 PM, "Nico Williams" <nico@cryptonector.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Francis Galiegue <fgaliegue@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > And you'd have remembered, also, that I _explicitly said_ that they >> > were not submitted yet because feedback was needed. >> >> Well, we submit Internet-Drafts because feedback is needed :) It's >> quite OK to submit a badly incomplete/unfinished I-D; indeed, I'd say >> that that's the only way to get started and make progress towards a >> Standards-Track RFC. >> >> Nico >> -- >> _______________________________________________ >> apps-discuss mailing list >> apps-discuss@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss >> > > _______________________________________________ > apps-discuss mailing list > apps-discuss@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss > > -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/
- [apps-discuss] JSON Schema considered harmful Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [apps-discuss] JSON Schema considered harmful Francis Galiegue
- Re: [apps-discuss] JSON Schema considered harmful Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [apps-discuss] JSON Schema considered harmful Francis Galiegue
- Re: [apps-discuss] JSON Schema considered harmful Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [apps-discuss] JSON Schema considered harmful Francis Galiegue
- Re: [apps-discuss] JSON Schema considered harmful Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [apps-discuss] JSON Schema considered harmful Francis Galiegue
- Re: [apps-discuss] JSON Schema considered harmful Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [apps-discuss] JSON Schema considered harmful Francis Galiegue
- Re: [apps-discuss] JSON Schema considered harmful Nico Williams
- Re: [apps-discuss] JSON Schema considered harmful Francis Galiegue
- Re: [apps-discuss] JSON Schema considered harmful Nico Williams
- Re: [apps-discuss] JSON Schema considered harmful James M Snell
- Re: [apps-discuss] JSON Schema considered harmful Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [apps-discuss] JSON Schema considered harmful Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [apps-discuss] JSON Schema considered harmful Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [apps-discuss] JSON Schema considered harmful Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)
- Re: [apps-discuss] JSON Schema considered harmful Nico Williams
- Re: [apps-discuss] JSON Schema considered harmful Erik Wilde
- Re: [apps-discuss] JSON Schema considered harmful Nico Williams
- Re: [apps-discuss] JSON Schema considered harmful Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [apps-discuss] JSON Schema considered harmful Erik Wilde
- Re: [apps-discuss] JSON Schema considered harmful Tim Bray
- Re: [apps-discuss] JSON Schema considered harmful Bob Wyman
- Re: [apps-discuss] JSON Schema considered harmful James M Snell
- Re: [apps-discuss] JSON Schema considered harmful evan@status.net
- Re: [apps-discuss] JSON Schema considered harmful Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [apps-discuss] JSON Schema considered harmful Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [apps-discuss] JSON Schema considered harmful Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [apps-discuss] JSON Schema considered harmful Julian Reschke
- Re: [apps-discuss] JSON Schema considered harmful Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [apps-discuss] JSON Schema considered harmful Julian Reschke
- Re: [apps-discuss] JSON Schema considered harmful Mark Nottingham
- Re: [apps-discuss] JSON Schema considered harmful Dave Crocker
- Re: [apps-discuss] JSON Schema considered harmful Tim Bray
- Re: [apps-discuss] JSON Schema considered harmful Dave Crocker
- Re: [apps-discuss] JSON Schema considered harmful Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [apps-discuss] JSON Schema considered harmful SM
- Re: [apps-discuss] JSON Schema considered harmful Francis Galiegue
- Re: [apps-discuss] JSON Schema considered harmful Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [apps-discuss] JSON Schema considered harmful Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [apps-discuss] JSON Schema considered harmful Andrew Newton
- Re: [apps-discuss] JSON Schema considered harmful Dave Crocker