Re: [Json] Nudging the English-language vs. formalisms discussion forward

Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> Wed, 19 February 2014 17:22 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 299641A0249 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 09:22:36 -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 Kx_cUaL7tN0f for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 09:22:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ve0-f175.google.com (mail-ve0-f175.google.com [209.85.128.175]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A2B61A04E7 for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 09:22:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ve0-f175.google.com with SMTP id c14so690186vea.6 for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 09:22:31 -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=k8ZX4oQFJQeOSr8X+w6Yp4ZeLvkzzZ+FB3Dz73sXPj0=; b=iy0N2oANKAS0CNullMDn+vBWzaqeW9sxlVFfEucPsXzJYUIwXLGjZCX5a780Fec2Uo G4nbwv2RKjd8oLqt6fKfvM3BIxbfI2BgAjvvGuGwUos8z6hUdfYsx7rtFrKmrlSJpdck PON6urT4nMFDRYwwCTv3Kd1t/MDOYBdbXNKeH9tY0wM/MZNQD4pN7g4Xp3uyQt2a4lbc tzpDpc3hVJ+S3Ep/EACuwzUmfqtROX2igb05sKNXJxYulIVdVp+Hf9mscXP5a/G18dkx c63DKCawcAu3lqO+XY2Jl8v3V3aN25eh/oa0PxdIlpNt6RljwiKr3JxtvLZqS3CPNBk5 2FcQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm0NvoqsmjHS1R3wF0fgc2BAHl2INGAwnk9ffV8bAFZzUE5ey92nlieWZZUxoju8cGXEJnN
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.52.77.9 with SMTP id o9mr955879vdw.82.1392830550996; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 09:22:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.220.98.73 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 09:22:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Originating-IP: [24.84.235.32]
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+LwibiSDmymjt544kykhoXdMyR49uhMDLzzvwcBAaw_7oSw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C87F9B96-E028-4F0E-A950-B39D3F68FFE7@vpnc.org> <CAMm+LwhUh_yN-hzaoDWfrO_H2iGvYvj99BCE4EcYmgqCPqXoVQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAHBU6itpttXBfVQGKw=u==k_XSdrht81+m_YDNZP6RM+=9CNow@mail.gmail.com> <CAMm+LwibiSDmymjt544kykhoXdMyR49uhMDLzzvwcBAaw_7oSw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 09:22:30 -0800
Message-ID: <CAHBU6isHwnMst1g6DM+6ZOG=uOsBTAjk-gVQuZimnFRB475F0g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec50160c1397f7804f2c5a2ed
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/EF5Z7sGhr4EXM6AtK08NA9p6kKk
Cc: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, JSON WG <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] Nudging the English-language vs. formalisms discussion forward
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: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 17:22:36 -0000

[pardon the mangled email. Blame my cat]

On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 8:52 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>wrote;wrote:

>
> The point is to focus the discussion on the data going over the wire
> rather than the syntax.
>

Here is where we disagree absolutely. The point is to specify the syntax
clearly and unambiguously, and the semantics of its payload.  Trying to
come at it from the other direction (specifying data structures and then
extracting syntax) leads to huge mistakes like CORBA and WS-*.

You go on to provide examples of badly-designed protocol syntax.  I don’t
think we have any disagreement that bad design is possible and should be
avoided.


>
>