IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Json] Proposed rechartering for the JSON WG

Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> Sun, 09 February 2014 03:40 UTC

Return-Path: <tbray@textuality.com>
X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68F971A0680 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 19:40:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Px2DjmxsvEah for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 19:40:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ve0-f176.google.com (mail-ve0-f176.google.com [209.85.128.176]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 096CE1A067D for <json@ietf.org>; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 19:40:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ve0-f176.google.com with SMTP id oz11so3935825veb.21 for <json@ietf.org>; Sat, 08 Feb 2014 19:40:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=cn6/VoZg2Lm95pv4ZTlaukaJ3aEfp10uIzJEcOcXd2k=; b=ZYUH//wImpvA5YSAiM/fxiBf7U1vbDzqaMj4G1E+XVWKRwjtznFpX+6jIVGu/5PEjI N+Oerx1LKK07kK7IrDyKaO64wFDsTvC41kgfUUOJF1Vxd9XlFOWXHEgr9q+euXHiwyi8 ofeCpv2/J+HJs0gSjVN/E5M5IbBz/HmiHXqLaENt3UaR2oEPUoqvU4KXoGuI42AkvMhR tKzKwu8A8PWENTb15hqv6pz8EF3DBOAE1nLf/fk2KaP9gd9uN+2oZ8eDiSNtf8ZSdeTx yxpVVJKj3WX3dIVNr9GGkYHbo6kDi99VURr1Y6+m9jPg0KahSLpx6hNpoSv9ovv1R7Wz YrlQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmVwGlxDgVFPP1lVaQ4ArwlVhtzP2O+aW0k/sHoWcrqG0z6gHXg+Mr+/jZGFxzChjgZi3qR
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.58.200.168 with SMTP id jt8mr281667vec.30.1391917213912; Sat, 08 Feb 2014 19:40:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.220.98.73 with HTTP; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 19:40:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Originating-IP: [24.84.235.32]
In-Reply-To: <7E1F7FE6-E7A9-4B7D-902C-A60D39B7B994@vpnc.org>
References: <52D9B39C.5020102@cisco.com> <1C1347D2-0D99-4D49-B4C1-199246167D23@vpnc.org> <CAMm+Lwj0phrmP563tBbZJKHeYw=Azh1as6GZOA6rANPpC6PJgA@mail.gmail.com> <CAHBU6iv+-9xQYAjZdfZk7+GeA6J+sjaV5era3L+PiJ9RoauBYg@mail.gmail.com> <CAMm+Lwh0O4+iuaJMUhYgj+0GS8e9b_nZtNNX91hOmjUypsgkTQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAK3OfOhu0GZY9CVQrqD4SyjHLVEoEg1DtYj_6imZbbHtzX2eEw@mail.gmail.com> <CAHBU6iuR0MPm9q483jBMqTRkGV1f2giGNhp+UciQ7rRnrvcEBA@mail.gmail.com> <C271F837-40FD-4E87-A56B-0F0357553923@mnot.net> <7E1F7FE6-E7A9-4B7D-902C-A60D39B7B994@vpnc.org>
Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2014 19:40:13 -0800
Message-ID: <CAHBU6isnvZxhMaay=Lh9UjUmqZtdPMkxf_9_+9zgczfFWEWWKw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7bd6bd7617a29304f1f0fbdb"
Cc: JSON WG <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] Proposed rechartering for the JSON WG
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" <json.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/json>, <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/json/>
List-Post: <mailto:json@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json>, <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 03:40:16 -0000

Partly. I don’t see why we have to write natural-language into the charter,
maybe we should do XPath-ish.  So how about leaving it the way it was with
“nomenclature” and add on Mark’s “This explicitly excludes schema languages
and similar formalisms.”


On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 7:13 PM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote:

> On Feb 8, 2014, at 6:37 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
>
> > 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.”
>
> Do the folks who earlier +1'd the proposed text like Mark's reformulation?
>
> --Paul Hoffman
> _______________________________________________
> json mailing list
> json@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email