IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Json] Proposed rechartering for the JSON WG

Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> Sat, 08 February 2014 23:52 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 3D2051A0641 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 15:52:49 -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 oRPDS8L7z42n for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 15:52:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vc0-f170.google.com (mail-vc0-f170.google.com [209.85.220.170]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 842FD1A041B for <json@ietf.org>; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 15:52:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vc0-f170.google.com with SMTP id hu8so3827704vcb.29 for <json@ietf.org>; Sat, 08 Feb 2014 15:52:47 -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=b1J9eT2IFbkw8bxkNMyZPVjJ8DTW0DyWoGMQ7QRjKXI=; b=Hc4EIr36eCQ+Z2ZtY8ez1DUYL6cwwsAJatTvx9DQEBFWYSN8J4rBM4fAxRj+sYq3Q0 VThpRNvb+HCQZOo0cV+GpcCmuTHR66Z5+V9xNV5la9HpnhmKlneot1Yu7KdSSxe5u9x0 ZnhY9kOw9ygpPBT/DDEziJpBdfrqidD0bD3kV/OINcJMUUGVZ2Y6ht7OG9xt6rqVtGV9 xGmqwQmoqSqE5p5FY0O03Ml7/CWR7J2wL1qkltgWV12AoX7wf5Jx5zxs3OFvlmmHWXh4 EM8phdrwdJ4FGa+7p7XPVGIfTca7JZ94mgE4vBGtdD4D9AdK+9dKLPB5DHjzvwbrgd4l 65HA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlgsB03FnbCUw9OjFY5Qe4GPpJUtBmaA0iB5jk2w9fF+uCK6kxsCCpM9PH6Xxpds/cVap/y
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.58.169.7 with SMTP id aa7mr2753vec.24.1391903567606; Sat, 08 Feb 2014 15:52:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.220.98.73 with HTTP; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 15:52:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Originating-IP: [24.84.235.32]
In-Reply-To: <CAK3OfOj7Ti+rRGXXdMQwFvErUrbG34N8Wn0JqGhaKBA4=ri-nA@mail.gmail.com>
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> <CAK3OfOj7Ti+rRGXXdMQwFvErUrbG34N8Wn0JqGhaKBA4=ri-nA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2014 15:52:47 -0800
Message-ID: <CAHBU6isUs76sXdcH5gNMrZKr4XpcZdEziHjrHzUpHDvKXcvyWg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
To: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b6dcf42b58a0d04f1edcda6"
Cc: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, "json@ietf.org" <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: Sat, 08 Feb 2014 23:52:49 -0000

On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> wrote:

>
> An XPath/XSLT for JSON would be good.  There's a great candidate for
> that: http://stedolan.github.io/jq .


jq seems like overkill. Wow, would it ever be easy to do a JSON path
selector.   They practically read themselves

"buffer"/"size"
//"size"
//"buffers"/./"size"
//"buffers"/0/"size"
//"buffers"/-1/.
"buffer"/./"key"

But I don't propose
> standardizing such a thing.
>
> > Disclosure: I'm not convinced this is necessary or even useful.
>
> Schemas help document protocols.  They are as useful as ABNF, ASN.1,
> and so on.  In practice we can't get to where we have 100% formal
> descriptions of everything relevant to interop, but a total lack of
> formality isn't exactly a good thing either.  In absence of a JSON
> schema language (or three) we'll have to resort to showing examples
> and English prose for the rest.
>
> Nico
> --
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email