Re: [Json] JSON Concluded? Well, maybe not

[Erik Wilde <[e-mail]>]

hello.

On 2017-12-31 10:50, Tim Bray wrote:
> If I were going to make an argument for keeping the WG alive, it would 
> require someone to get energized and submit an I-D for a plausible JSON 
> schema system, or maybe even a much-needed formalization of JSONPath. We 
> use JSONPath a lot at AWS.

for the schema aspect:

https://github.com/json-schema-org/json-schema-spec/issues/526 makes the 
relatively small team behind JSON schema (which started out as a 
continuation of the long-abandoned effort by kris zyp	) aware of this 
possibility. i am not involved enough to decide whether they are 
interested in making this step, but at least it's an effort that has 
been pretty active, and it might be an interesting candidate for a JSON 
schema language.

for the JSON path aspect: +1 as well, but i am not aware of something as 
active as the schema language effort above that could be pulled in.

for kicks and giggles, i'd also like to throw in that it would be great 
to have some reusable way of how various vocabularies can exist 
alongside in JSON. one could mutter the words "XML namespaces" here, but 
most people have negative views of them. but still: in APIs, there often 
is the need to support extensibility and openness, and it seems like 
every JSON-based API design has to come up with its own way of doing it.

cheers (and happy new year to everybody!),

dret.

-- 
erik wilde | mailto:[e-mail] |
            | http://dret.net/netdret    |
            | http://twitter.com/dret    |