Re: [Json] Call for WG Consensus on Whether or Not to Adopt Nomenclature Document(s) in the Charter

That I-D would be greatly improved by tossing the ABNF and just using
English, saying what the names of the fields and the allowed values for
them are.  “Better than ABNF” isn’t what we’re trying for; “Better than
reasonably-well-edited English” is.  I still haven’t seen an example where
a schema language would meet that criterion.

Seriously, if nobody can find an example where schema/nomenclature would
actually improve a real existing non-hypothetical document, I think it
would be silly for the WG to proceed with inventing a solution to a
non-problem.

Also, that I-D does something else that seems really wrong: Says that the
the JSON objects must be expressed on a single line.  Hmmm

 -T

On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote:

> Here's a JSON format that could definitely use a simple JSON description
> language of some sort. The draft authors went the ABNF route, and it's
> completely unclear where they are going until you look at the examples and
> realize how trivial the format really is.
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dulaunoy-kaplan-passive-dns-cof
>
> --Paul Hoffman
> _______________________________________________
> json mailing list
> json@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>