Re: [Json] Proposed rechartering for the JSON WG

[Cyrus Daboo <[e-mail]>]

Hi Paul,

--On February 8, 2014 at 7:13:16 PM -0800 Paul Hoffman 
<[e-mail]> wrote:

>> I’d be more comfortable if the charter were more explicit about this;
>> e.g., “A set of natural-language terms and/or phrases for use in
>> future specifications that use JSON. This explicitly excludes schema
>> languages and similar formalisms.”
>
> Do the folks who earlier +1'd the proposed text like Mark's reformulation?
>

Would that rule out something like: 
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-newton-json-content-rules-01>? I have 
found that extremely useful in a couple of specs I have used. It focusses 
the spec developer on enumerating the structure and set of members etc in a 
JSON document. It helps developers by making clear all the possible options 
(something examples are not good at).

I am not sure a "natural-language" formalism is sufficient because that is 
not as expressive as a "structured" formalism for describing things like 
hierarchy, e.g.:

A contains B contains C

vs

A : {
  B : {
    C
  }
}

Even with "natural language" I suspect people will introduce lists, indents 
etc leading to something more structured.

-- 
Cyrus Daboo