Re: [Json] JSON Schema Language

[Pete Cordell <[e-mail]>]

On 08/05/2019 00:57, Ulysse Carion wrote:
> ...  I went with JSON as the representation
> because it makes building tooling atop of JSON Schema Language much
> easier, since it doesn't require that the implementor write a parser.
> Such ease of extension is valuable: JSON is widespread largely because
> of how easy it is to build atop of, and we should not readily
> sacrifice this. JSON as the representation also unlocks syntax
> highlighting, formatting, and other such niceties for free.
> Furthermore, and most importantly, using JSON as a representation does
> not preclude later creating a RELAX NG-style compact representation
> later on.

This makes sense if the only things reading and writing JSON Schema are 
machines. Once you have humans involved, my experience (e.g. XML Schema) 
is that it is a bad choice.

Writing XML Schema becomes more bearable if you have XML Schema aware 
editors.  Being XML aware alone isn't sufficient.

So in addition to having a JSON aware editor, you would also need a JSON 
Schema aware editor that included auto-suggestion and more advanced 
editing features beyond syntax highlighting etc like that.

IMO, in that case you would be better off putting effort into a JSON 
specification format that didn't need as much help to edit it in the 
first place.

Pete.
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Pete Cordell
Codalogic Ltd
C++ tools for C++ programmers, http://codalogic.com
Read & write XML in C++, http://www.xml2cpp.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------