Re: If not JSON, what then ?

[Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>]

Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> I don't have an informed opinion about CDDL at this point, but
> having two parallel specifications sounds like a clas^H^H^H^Hantiquity
> mistake to me.
> 
> How do you plan to make sure they both say the same thing ?

You generate the JSON one from the original CDDL source when you need it.
(The JSON version is for interchange between tools working on instances
of the specification language, not for humans to work on it.  Of course
it is not hard to write a CDDL parser, but it is even easier to ingest
JSON from an existing CDDL parser, and standardizing this intermediate
format together with the language sounds like a good idea and is simple
enough to do.)

Grüße, Carsten