Re: [Json] Proposed rechartering for the JSON WG

+1

I’d be more comfortable if the charter were more explicit about this; e.g., “A set of natural-language terms and/or phrases for use in future specifications that use JSON. This explicitly excludes schema languages and similar formalisms.” 

On 8 Feb 2014, at 12:14 pm, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> wrote:

> I really want to stay away from the slippery schema slope. So I do not think we're trying to be ABNF for JSON, because that is in fact a simple lexical schema.  In a spec sentence like this:
> 
> The value of the "size" member of the top level "buffer" item MUST be a non-negative integer.
> 
> I think nomenclature means having a uniform standardised way to express the meaning of the words between "value of" and "MUST".  Perhaps something like XPath for JSON.
> 
> Disclosure: I'm not convinced this is necessary or even useful.
> 
> On 7 Feb 2014 20:03, "Nico Williams" <nico@cryptonector.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 6:57 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 6:20 PM, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> wrote:
> >> On 7 Feb 2014 17:54, "Phillip Hallam-Baker" <hallam@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Does a 'standardized nomenclature for JSON' mean formal languages are in
> >> > or out of scope?
> >>
> >> Don't know what you mean by Formal Languages in this context, but schemas
> >> are clearly out of scope.
> >
> > By formal language I mean a machine readable description of the data
> > structure that specifies the tag names and the set of corresponding values.
> 
> That's schema.  One (or more) schema representations for JSON would be
> nice, yes.
> 
> Note that ABNF is a formal language, but not what you're after, which
> is why I would have asked the question Tim asked.
> 
> Nico
> --
> _______________________________________________
> json mailing list
> json@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/