Re: [Json] Comments on the proposed charter

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Wed, 20 February 2013 02:13 UTC

Return-Path: <mnot@mnot.net>
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 5A5AA21F86E3 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 18:13:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.433
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.433 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.834, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Obi7sqQ8ifvd for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 18:13:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net (mxout-08.mxes.net [216.86.168.183]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF74721F86E6 for <json@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 18:13:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.80] (unknown [118.209.197.138]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 88CCC509B5; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 21:13:01 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <CALcybBD-ksPe71YY9BY-NZ9VP0tNqToySn8zp+9swtM=P9MiCw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 13:12:57 +1100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <95501AA5-EA26-4D74-8C6B-187F0E52C524@mnot.net>
References: <E0597F3D-773C-4CDD-8087-09B99ADCF156@mnot.net> <CALcybBD-ksPe71YY9BY-NZ9VP0tNqToySn8zp+9swtM=P9MiCw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Francis Galiegue <fgaliegue@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
Cc: "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] Comments on the proposed charter
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion related to JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\)." <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, 20 Feb 2013 02:13:03 -0000

There are ways to be aware of how JSON will be used without taking responsibility for defining those uses.


On 20/02/2013, at 1:11 PM, Francis Galiegue <fgaliegue@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 2:54 AM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
> [...]
>> 
>> This is a horrifically, monumentally bad idea.
>> 
>> Having a catch-all Working Group for anything that happens to use JSON is like having one for anything that happens to use ASCII or UTF-8. It's like shoving XML Schema, XLink, SOAP, Atom, DocBook and XHTML into the same Working Group.
>> 
> 
> On the other hand, a working group focussing on JSON alone and only
> JSON may fail to see the big picture of how JSON is actually _used_.
> As far as I see it, this working group does not aim at standardizing
> all of these, but it also needs to know how JSON is used in real life
> situations. And as such, it needs to be aware of whatever idea has
> been submitted as an I-D, or for that matter any other idea involving
> JSON and not the IETF (JSON-RPC comes to mind, but so does SMD,
> GeoJSON etc).
> 
> 
> So, I disagree: this is not a bad idea. Awareness is needed. The most
> clever people in the world, discussing a format, if clueless about
> what happens "out there", have no value in steering a format.
> 
> -- 
> Francis Galiegue, fgaliegue@gmail.com
> Try out your JSON Schemas: http://json-schema-validator.herokuapp.com

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