Re: [Json] Nudging the English-language vs. formalisms discussion forward

Andrew Newton <andy@hxr.us> Wed, 19 February 2014 22:24 UTC

Return-Path: <andy@hxr.us>
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 9F0B91A0524 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 14:24:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.278
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=no
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 DYQ9AXFcl4dq for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 14:23:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pd0-f175.google.com (mail-pd0-f175.google.com [209.85.192.175]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBFE31A0516 for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 14:23:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pd0-f175.google.com with SMTP id w10so947124pde.34 for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 14:23:55 -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=3zD2fn1xzfy7dFQiXhB+8B0PRLCqTtsnLzO0/BMrde4=; b=NDnVL3oIGacc+FUETa1Ug9mFND8PVa0LP+BANpvp2FmSj5fNKYgVZEydAvanEtBfKm /2YMFnXDfm0RARqO62Z1z7OeJDf6AnoHZypvz8wg3z/xOMLrrQ29+EA5va+oOjlWcSZC q1gDg27gXeNnAMYNIAZap6j36pA0F6VSLaWU/VLDnTQcVCvx5Ik4j8gCsiGJa/W9grP2 DbtZCnQvMR1KHybMAp6g47etQtKcjjCVs9bc97zteswtH35OkdJtI5xLACxC+lBj/W4M IQ0Hwz+QLbusHUD9iYIOp6Cm29iGpjtyixDJGv+oeb1YAwgCOFKwtu/PKhL8pVqngvlp j1XA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkxCRMwxat8YdxoblxMZdqIzfgXcalIcyKHQuMpodX+76u0aAG8E/RzSCMyQZUJSoSZtsPH
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.66.139.169 with SMTP id qz9mr43110909pab.16.1392848635512; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 14:23:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.68.143.4 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 14:23:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Originating-IP: [192.149.252.11]
In-Reply-To: <CAHBU6itzQ0rzU3EUYUqzm2qhx03qk1mpx2sehS_zeiw1ypcEgw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C87F9B96-E028-4F0E-A950-B39D3F68FFE7@vpnc.org> <CAMm+LwhUh_yN-hzaoDWfrO_H2iGvYvj99BCE4EcYmgqCPqXoVQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAHBU6itpttXBfVQGKw=u==k_XSdrht81+m_YDNZP6RM+=9CNow@mail.gmail.com> <CAK3OfOjHkBFOzJSx=bhhoQJ8Z2bWyEXK52dNyYGWVb9FAj99ow@mail.gmail.com> <CAHBU6itzQ0rzU3EUYUqzm2qhx03qk1mpx2sehS_zeiw1ypcEgw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 17:23:55 -0500
Message-ID: <CAAQiQRfc=cQrs8acaLWP-_9Z8ctNtKKid4G8WswPvk1roxWf4w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Andrew Newton <andy@hxr.us>
To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/4EswvC9XDGi6qrNLvob1dk4gGl8
Cc: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>, Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, JSON WG <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] Nudging the English-language vs. formalisms discussion forward
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: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 22:24:00 -0000

On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> wrote:
> I think clear English prose is *essential*, the one thing a specification
> must have. Thus, schemas can be actively harmful if arguing over them
> distracts attention from crafting the prose properly.  This is particularly
> the case when the schema language is a flawed tool, which so many of them
> are.

I agree, clear English prose are essential. At the moment, I am
evaluating two competing security protocols, both open standards
specified with XML Schema of which one is the product of an IETF
working group. The IETF standard is much clearer to understand because
it offers prose on top of the XSD. I cannot help but think that the
reason the IETF standard stands out is simply because it is an IETF
standard; along the way to RFC it was reviewed and reviewed and people
simply would not have let it pass had it been only an XSD. Therefore I
do not think we need to worry about IETF specifications being harmed
by schemas.

-andy