Re: [Json] JSON Schema

Could you give pointers to current drafts?  I had a horrible experience
with JSON Schema (V2 I think? Whatever's current implemented) - the
implementations were inconsistent with each other, the error messages out
of the validators were simultaneously verbose and unhelpful, and I was
looking at it trying to figure how I'd get better-quality messages, it
seemed sort of intrinsically difficult. I would want to see existence proof
of a validator that produced high-quality error messages before I could
really get behind a design.

I ended up writing my own schema language to produce a user-friendly
validator, but it's on the eccentric side and I doubt of interest to the
broader community:
https://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/201x/2016/12/01/J2119-Validator

Having said that, I think work on a schema language for JSON might be
welcomed in the IETF, given a good draft to start with and an editor or
editors who were interested in doing things the IETF way.  It's not that
lightweight, we'd have to re-charter the working group, but far from
impossible.

On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 1:25 PM, Henry Andrews <henry@cloudflare.com> wrote:

> Hi folks,
>   I'm one of the JSON Schema draft editors, and it's been brought to our
> attention that the JSON Schema project may fit within this working group
> (or a successor?  I'm a little confused as to the current status and scope
> of this group).  We are definitely interested in having the project adopted
> by an IETF working group and eventually reaching RFC status if possible.
>
>   To date we have not felt like the project is quite ready for that step,
> although I don't personally have a good feel for the criteria.  Since
> October 2016, Austin Wright and I, with a great deal of behind-the-scenes
> help from Ben Hutton and others, have published three drafts of JSON Schema
> Core and Validation, four of Hyper-Schema, and two of Relative JSON
> Pointer.  We are actively working on the next Core and Validation drafts
> right now.
>
>   In addition to the obvious JSON Schema community engagement, we are also
> working directly with the Open API technical steering committee to resolve
> the problems that led them to adopt an almost-but-not-quite-compatible
> form of JSON Schema.  I feel like they are a good proxy for general
> adoption problems as they have a large community of their own, and their
> concerns arise from common use cases that are not quite well-served at this
> time (particularly code generation).  We've also engaged a bit with folks
> using JSON-LD who want to figure out how to leverage both, although that
> idea is very embryonic at this time.
>
>   We're currently working on resolving some major questions of scope for
> the project overall and the Core and Validation specifications in
> particular (a lot of it related to how use cases such as code generation
> fit with the existing targeted use cases).  I hope to resolve these in the
> next major draft before the current ones expire.  There may be a minor
> bug-fix in the next week or so, separate from that effort, and one
> additional scope question may be deferred to another draft beyond that.
>
>   Once the scope is settled, I had planned to actively look into working
> group status for the core and validation specifications.  Hyper-Schema
> requires more work and at least a few viable implementations.  Relative
> JSON Pointer could probably move to working group status as well if it is
> of interest (we've also considered merging it into JSON Schema Core if
> there is no interest in it as its own RFC: JSON Path is not a good fit for
> our needs despite being a great idea in its own right, and we already make
> extensive use of JSON Pointer).
>
>   I believe that the ongoing broad use and implementation of JSON Schema
> despite a multi-year abandonment of the draft work shows that it is a very
> viable and useful technology despite the complaints around the edges (I
> noticed that the complaint on this mailing list from 2016 was also about
> code generation- as I mentioned, that's a current focus of ours to
> resolve).  We've started to see implementations of the new drafts in use,
> and interest in the latest draft picked up even more quickly than the one
> before, so there seems to be real interest in taking JSON Schema over the
> finish line into some sort of official standard. The current team is
> committed to seeing this through. The recent change in submitting editor is
> just a reflection of who had the most time; the core team members have all
> remained involved since draft publication resumed.
>
>   I'm interested in any feedback or suggestions on the path forward.
>
> thanks,
> -henry
>
> --
>
>    -
>
>    *Henry Andrews*  |  Systems Engineer
>    henry@cloudflare.com
>    <https://www.cloudflare.com/>
>
>    1 888 99 FLARE  |  www.cloudflare.com
>    -
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> json mailing list
> json@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>
>

-- 
- Tim Bray (If you’d like to send me a private message, see
https://keybase.io/timbray)