Re: [Json] JSON Schema (Was: JSON Concluded? Well, maybe not)

On the JSON schema topic, Andy Newton and I, with the help of a number 
of people active in the IETF, have been working on something called 
"JSON Content Rules".  The current I-D is at:

   https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-newton-json-content-rules-09.txt

The aim is for it to be easy to write, and easy to understand.  It's a 
"JSON-like" syntax, as it was felt restricting it to pure JSON made the 
syntax harder to write and read.

There's a few more details at the following address, including details 
of implementations so far:

   http://json-content-rules.org

We're happy to discuss it with anyone, either here, using my send 
address, or via contact@json-content-rules.org .

Happy New Year!

Pete.

On 31/12/2017 18:50, 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.
> 
> On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 10:43 AM, Richard Gibson 
> <richard.gibson@gmail.com <mailto:richard.gibson@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>     On the topic of JSON normalization, I believe that
>     canonicaljson-spec
>     <http://gibson042.github.io/canonicaljson-spec/> covers all cases
>     while respecting prior art like
>     https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-staykov-hu-json-canonical-form-00
>     <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-staykov-hu-json-canonical-form-00> and
>     RFC 7638. I'd like to get it published as an RFC to handle scenarios
>     like those mentioned by Anders Rundgren, but am not sure how to go
>     about doing so. Is this a good place to ask for assistance?
> 
>     On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 12:24 AM, Anders Rundgren
>     <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com
>     <mailto:anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>         Congratulations everybody to the revised JSON RFC!
> 
>         Does this mean that JSON is "done" for good?
> 
>         Probably not because the concept I have mentioned from time to
>         time, the ability adding a digital signature to a JSON object
>         (in contrast to signing arbitrary Base64Url-encoded data), is
>         still very much alive.  In fact, there is an I-D in preparation
>         aiming at reducing the current proliferation of "DIY-standards"
>         for dealing with this highly requested feature.  The only real
>         challenge is agreeing on a suitable way "normalizing" JSON data
>         during parsing and serialization.  Such a scheme will be like an
>         extended version of I-JSON (RFC7493), potentially having an
>         impact on "ordinary" uses of JSON as well.
> 
>         Happy New [and optionally signed] JSON Year
>         Anders Rundgren
> 
>         _______________________________________________
>         json mailing list
>         json@ietf.org <mailto:json@ietf.org>
>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>         <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json>
> 
> 
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     json mailing list
>     json@ietf.org <mailto:json@ietf.org>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> - Tim Bray (If you’d like to send me a private message, see 
> https://keybase.io/timbray)
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> json mailing list
> json@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
> 