Re: [Json] Possible next work for the WG

John Cowan <> Wed, 16 October 2013 16:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE21111E814D for <>; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 09:54:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.693
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.693 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.094, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RuKcrHEzxR5K for <>; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 09:54:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFC0111E8138 for <>; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 09:54:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cowan by with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <>) id 1VWUMI-0005OK-DY; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 12:54:06 -0400
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 12:54:06 -0400
From: John Cowan <>
To: Paul Hoffman <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Sender: John Cowan <>
Cc: JSON WG <>
Subject: Re: [Json] Possible next work for the WG
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 16:54:12 -0000

Paul Hoffman scripsit:

> - I-JSON (a profile of JSON with some interoperability issues nailed down)
> - Best practices document for JSON implementers and folks who use JSON
> in protocols

I think these are both worthy ideas, though perhaps they can be merged.

> - Canonicalization rules so that two JSON texts can be compared for equality

I think we should explore this, but it's going to be tricky.

> - Requirements for JSON schema (which will be needed before the WG
> considers working on an actual schema)

As reinvented wheels are often hexagonal, I think if we are going to
do this we should adopt draft-zyp-json-schema-04 as a base document
for further work.  This has now expired, but is still available at

I note that this draft proposes "application/schema+json" as the media
type for JSON schemas.  That leads me to believe we should make "*/*+json"
official, parallel to "*/*+xml" per RFC 3023.  I'll post on that separately.

John Cowan
        Is it not written, "That which is written, is written"?