Re: [apps-discuss] JSON Schema considered harmful

On 2012/09/21 5:20, Tim Bray wrote:
> Frankly that notion had never crossed my mind, but is there a case for a
> “Tao of network protocols” or an “Informational BCP” or some such?  I could
> put some cycles into it.  -T

What about doing it in the style of http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3470, 
or maybe even as an update of tha document?

Regards,    Martin.

> On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Dave Crocker<dhc@dcrocker.net>  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 9/20/2012 1:05 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 20/09/2012, at 9:53 AM, Tim Bray<tbray@textuality.com>  wrote:
>>>
>>>   I believe:
>>>> - ASN.1 has been bypassed by history and has truly horrible tooling.
>>>> Just don’t go there.
>>>> - If you’re interchanging documents, use XML; if (much more common)
>>>> you’re interchanging data structures, use JSON.
>>>> - Do not use multiple syntaxes for the same protocol. Pick one of XML or
>>>> JSON and stick with it.
>>>> - The most important thing in defining a protocol is good clean
>>>> comprehensible human-readable prose.
>>>> - All the protocols I’ve ever seen have important constraints that can’t
>>>> be expressed usefully in declarative schema languages.
>>>> - Therefore, the next most important thing is an automated
>>>> validator/test-suite.
>>>> - A schema is a nice-to-have.
>>>> - If you’re in XML and want schema-ware, use RelaxNG. For an example,
>>>> see RFC4287.
>>>> - If your protocol is JSON, investment in a validator/test-suite has
>>>> much higher ROI than chasing schema unicorns.
>>>>
>>>
>>> +1; somebody please give this a BCP#.
>>>
>>
>>
>> In its current form, perhaps not.
>>
>> On the other hand, something along this lines could provide exremely
>> useful pedagogy in doing specifications work.
>>
>> It would, of course, need rather more verbose discussion/justification of
>> its guidance.
>>
>> That is, something that says what the characteristics are of the better
>> formal notation choices are and what the characteristics of the less better
>> ones are.  Then describes the better choices and their enticing features,
>> perhaps in terms of tradeoffs.
>>
>> Then meta-points, such as "choose exactly one".  Etc.
>>
>> d/
>>
>> --
>>   Dave Crocker
>>   Brandenburg InternetWorking
>>   bbiw.net
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> apps-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss