Re: [Json] Proposed rechartering for the JSON WG

[Phillip Hallam-Baker <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Those schema scars must be deep, because Cyrus of course is right.
>
> Having a minimal parseable description technique for JSON-based protocols
> would save us from tedium such as in RFC 7071 section 6.2.2.
> (Not needing something like that ever again*) in the future is my personal
> benchmark for what we need to achieve here.)
>

A machine readable specification supported by tools is very useful. But how
many people are writing tools? Are we at a stage where it is helpful to
converge on one tool?

https://sourceforge.net/projects/jsonschema/

My view is that it would be a very bad idea to design such a tool in
committee and that there would be negligible value from having the format
be declared a standard prematurely.

A better way forward would be to publish proposals for schema formats as
INFORMATIONAL RFCs and see which get used.


**) The other important thing is that a JSON description technique doesn't
> have to be parse as JSON, just as an XML schema does not have to be parse
> as XML.
> Why are people falling into this trap again and again...


For SAML I generated all my XML schemas using another tool written using
Goedel. If I was going to write another XML spec I would extend the
generator to dump XML schema.

I have an ASN.1 parser as well so I could provide a tool that generated
code for ASN.1, XML and JSON.



-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/