IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Tue, 18 February 2014 01:16 UTC

Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.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 AC4441A01E7 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 17:16:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.378
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.378 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=no
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 b2pJ-YZCvq5u for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 17:16:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from homiemail-a16.g.dreamhost.com (caiajhbdcbbj.dreamhost.com [208.97.132.119]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DC561A00EA for <json@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 17:16:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from homiemail-a16.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a16.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68C51508064 for <json@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 17:16:18 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h= mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from :to:cc:content-type; s=cryptonector.com; bh=GAqM4t/EcdPSLKE9Cn8A NJnGXlg=; b=oW2n9K+n4F6rtwel+HK1FiJdmUH5uYt1iw0KLSg5UCw4CbxFsEf7 V0ps3Sv8pBXONo9z634KlUR1msMo5oZGAuU/yKlXmbOFJ9qANzQl4q3/VQTI3/e4 0zowIulPpIvhDWIUpiNFi4iBA3SwH6niMsm48Mz6y1+voXLd7GxIzUQ=
Received: from mail-wg0-f48.google.com (mail-wg0-f48.google.com [74.125.82.48]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by homiemail-a16.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F2AB650805F for <json@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 17:16:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wg0-f48.google.com with SMTP id a1so2758000wgh.15 for <json@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 17:16:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=9aWF78QL9FHKy9MYureBT47NqA/NLFTW0/vG+zTXIoE=; b=VZK94feaSsnAuaxGIa1uhqkjm2v3d1CFw8Dfpd/dScE+56UZ7WN3fhidcZz5I3R/69 wLwIDnota68CcU2G6BiMG5NLN6KDzdDO55TS11zN0pZCpabmQCjKTIbqbQg4Ep6SSK0s gdOZaBLRY1PnO7UdGoCCO7wiTgf7Rv4/BgxV1lleS0f1UUzm9ppCjRJZ77oe0D/y0Yor JUe5MmKSeE3jhS0umjxV60dKRSCkpmxCnNLs9GcMdA9OVX3Br4hWI3OBltYbymXDMamN lAUoYsYv+GoJAh1eNZePY/SKKDVrsECEviVQjcL8zL3/uHr/L/YHjbHDNMPVWqNhsKhx p27w==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.195.13.164 with SMTP id ez4mr20064211wjd.11.1392686176280; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 17:16:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.217.108.132 with HTTP; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 17:16:15 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <9D584FB2-134A-4D0F-8636-4521CE7B7FA0@vpnc.org>
References: <9D584FB2-134A-4D0F-8636-4521CE7B7FA0@vpnc.org>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 19:16:15 -0600
Message-ID: <CAK3OfOiHYyEk=ZMfM7_Oca4GvVD+Jm27z+SqhHYC120=yE1bhQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/TibSi9MyGvmcD0Lds8X6cNmfnv8
Cc: 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: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 01:16:22 -0000

My advice:

a) welcome WG work items for specifying one or more Informational JSON schemas,

b) recommend (not RFC2119 RECOMMEND) the use of a JSON schema when
specifying applications using JSON, if appropriate -- a schema of the
application spec authors' choosing.

Nico
--

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email