IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Json] Schema Requirements (Was: Re: Nudging the English-language vs. formalisms discussion forward)

"Pete Cordell" <petejson@codalogic.com> Thu, 20 February 2014 19:42 UTC

Return-Path: <petejson@codalogic.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 3DFA11A0255 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Feb 2014 11:42:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 3.537
X-Spam-Level: ***
X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.537 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.982, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.439] 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 xeclUjQtrxlu for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Feb 2014 11:42:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ppsa-online.com (lvps217-199-162-192.vps.webfusion.co.uk [217.199.162.192]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CB341A0176 for <json@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Feb 2014 11:42:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 17544 invoked from network); 20 Feb 2014 19:41:57 +0000
Received: from host81-155-177-242.range81-155.btcentralplus.com (HELO codalogic) (81.155.177.242) by lvps217-199-162-217.vps.webfusion.co.uk with ESMTPSA (RC4-MD5 encrypted, authenticated); 20 Feb 2014 19:41:55 +0000
Message-ID: <7B10598788A345A4A13093E4CE09E8A5@codalogic>
From: Pete Cordell <petejson@codalogic.com>
To: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>, Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
X-Unsent: 1
References: <C87F9B96-E028-4F0E-A950-B39D3F68FFE7@vpnc.org> <CAK3OfOjHkBFOzJSx=bhhoQJ8Z2bWyEXK52dNyYGWVb9FAj99ow@mail.gmail.com> <CAHBU6itzQ0rzU3EUYUqzm2qhx03qk1mpx2sehS_zeiw1ypcEgw@mail.gmail.com> <CAK3OfOhfjkbq6eREkt=MBVL1C9ubh-6My3Lvg-mnOxD0+cpN1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAHBU6isZbew8O1HJ+XcFsMCR42iDoO_uemPXVwa3=vM5A=MngA@mail.gmail.com> <CAK3OfOgmVsNJqrqCfsD7h37axssOoaX3DGHqO=bTn5bWrA+MFA@mail.gmail.com> <A4B53816-6FBF-4A37-8BC9-F0A9D0867BCD@tzi.org> <357740A8AA0F4316BE630917321FAB4D@codalogic> <B1EBE05A69362F001777F807@cyrus.local> <47BB9131737D42218A6382DEF45BBE2C@codalogic> <CAMm+LwgmHjoLu2=zTOERN8LO74hWpp45yy2epd2JzqDRM9oFfg@mail.gmail.com> <AF211B67DB3D453D9DE8F8FA53886F73@codalogic> <CAMm+LwguTBkGQBHN+e2kU6XxECsic9Kcvda+7X6KDNe0TQxq4w@mail.gmail.com> <FE06CD427A4044B995F57C4926A1C8C2@codalogic> <CAMm+Lwg2c-tVu2-HdarSoa6Gi0OM36uWW-14tRWBYn_CkPtYmg@mail.gmail.com> <CAK3OfOgOdRQ_p8MKc-Q9RZL-WegisHYLJvQFzteFKgJ6-S7oAA@mail.gmail.com>
X-Vipre-Scanned: 02591DAE00683002591EFB
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 19:42:42 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type="original"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/VaD9TKbVGxxMqjLLokm8a6RCcwo
Cc: JSON WG <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] Schema Requirements (Was: Re: 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: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 19:42:46 -0000

----- Original Message From: "Nico Williams"
> This sounds to me like an argument about how to handle extensibility.
> We should first consider whether we want schema extensibility and if
> we do, whether we want it to be explicit (like the ... extensibility
> marker in ASN.1) or implicit (like implicit ... ASN.1 extensibility
> markers in every type).

I assume you're taling about extensibility of the vocabularies defined by a 
schema rather than extensibility of the schema language itself?

> My position: we should want extensibility, and it should be explicit
> (because having every type be implicitly extensible is a PITA for code
> generation).

What aspect do you find a PITA?  Supporting both implicit extensibility and 
explicit extensibility is surely harder than just supporting implicit 
extensibility?

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email