Re: [Json] Schemas & so on

Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com> Tue, 03 May 2016 02:54 UTC

Return-Path: <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8023F12B04F for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 May 2016 19:54:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 EIG9EkTDR0Nc for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 May 2016 19:54:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm0-x232.google.com (mail-wm0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 47FA312B01C for <json@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 May 2016 19:54:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-x232.google.com with SMTP id g17so14803594wme.1 for <json@ietf.org>; Mon, 02 May 2016 19:54:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=5osVsnFcGJD4dLjBvNfuZOoz2ZLc7NJzK8FiMJF8bNQ=; b=vntw091QsGf5Ttgs2FXaoTFkg38l1xHrNM39Q7nU2QBH3rUjqKMOKB8iHRi5kvQGoV EiNAXl19PSs0l6SgA4AfwsxyLjdVcUVpNiiLNIy/Mffg7xvvDK/SwEAgggRxKKLPxzSE NR7s/WNjxy0bQD9xx/oMDAYw3CIS/VjG7TVa1nrP9OXVS54oM6mqdsLHHbso0KbNYW3o lmPksKB4QmEx9gB/l6rN1UVP2vEsTVkjwUHttV7F8INriXRdUUq61wHierXIAnjVdxrT 1HZp7ZGmLaeQjeTuUZb1vSO5KrBcwPGWhpTgYyWeRKC3tZMJdTZ/FURIQTrMx7Waj14a JhHQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=5osVsnFcGJD4dLjBvNfuZOoz2ZLc7NJzK8FiMJF8bNQ=; b=JWcfsR31OWI39uaI7+MjqqKKTk5p7mSxnpskohm3rWW1sQsx89/khjBrYTfoRkYIK9 O1Vvr4WJhfF7o5j89ua3d6iGV5hjBThl1L/++LSwcnElqS+Z/XGhdMsvDmnlZM1gCPEq DgWJpgOFigUqVPzQ0VvDPlBjoQoGzK+RZJouV7KZZbiKM2nnMk4DjNMMttBYRz24kJ4h Aw3qlX9NVXv0W1YLWZgsmFRx4fJvNk6Xp08cWNg1AAcfsEp8fm3eSscoGKfXkI3LNhHh w4l8lwlXepvoPAX6n/xFcgGewml3vNScVIJY7UhTZYRoqZ8wGgOVUuzRQiO1h1sp1Hn9 VysA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FUKWHEsImtpG++qsv+6uUDIRYZlXw1dpgtiWCA2qQSE0bou6gVZRrt4ohLfyLLrIg==
X-Received: by 10.28.90.65 with SMTP id o62mr21402249wmb.16.1462244053739; Mon, 02 May 2016 19:54:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.79] (124.25.176.95.rev.sfr.net. [95.176.25.124]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id e8sm1818953wma.2.2016.05.02.19.54.12 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 02 May 2016 19:54:12 -0700 (PDT)
To: Erik Wilde <erik.wilde@dret.net>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
References: <CAHBU6itCV9MXmALdKtE9-vjUPG6-6ZqdqzrmZkcEzSUysi3S-w@mail.gmail.com> <AC93811D-A16A-4527-B2EB-C6A9FC6D4F17@mnot.net> <4bb21809-bb40-7a3e-b7c7-f37da0976ea2@dret.net>
From: Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <bb20096f-3721-054c-5788-27ebc1f0b91c@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 04:53:56 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4bb21809-bb40-7a3e-b7c7-f37da0976ea2@dret.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/56jsEX-4kL2rzb9l2Ew5Zpez718>
Cc: "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] Schemas & so on
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 03 May 2016 02:54:17 -0000

On 2016-05-03 04:17, Erik Wilde wrote:
> On 2016-05-02 17:10, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> It strikes me that it might be worth writing down what we think is good in such a beast, and what would be not-good. Getting agreement on that might be... interesting, but if we had such a document (or maybe just a wiki page), we'd be able to evaluate the current contenders, at least.
>
> fwiw, after the discussion started on this list, it got me thinking
> because as mark noted, the discussion tends to start and then stop
> without a truly successful candidate emerging (so far). i think that
> there will be one, eventually, and over the weekend wrote down my
> thoughts about it here:
>
> http://dret.typepad.com/dretblog/2016/05/json-schema-why-and-how.html

Thanx!

IMO, the #1 problem is that there are at least three potential consumers of a "schema":
- Validators
- Code generators
- System documentation

I don't think a static declarative system would be very useful.   OTOH, scripting
would work particularly well for documentation so I will personally stick to
the programmatic approach.

I'm mainly concerned about the external part (documentation).  Here is an example:
https://cyberphone.github.io/openkeystore/resources/docs/keygen2.html#InvocationRequest

Anders

>
> cheers,
>
> dret.
>