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

Phillip Hallam-Baker <> Tue, 18 February 2014 02:10 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 345FF1A057F for <>; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 18:10:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id epMnsLQROXl0 for <>; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 18:10:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::236]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18C831A0567 for <>; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 18:10:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id y1so11909216lam.13 for <>; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 18:10:17 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=ytWonV2UuWI88A12LD9S7guzOdmx0AhJDcoaEAqvWQ4=; b=n4T5KwTPLsEvpilejUK4q9BWoXWSyT0x0YPEhldIF+aX4ZjSMNNuYZ4Oi9q5oj+ljx ABc6EjxKxEZ2jHZS/OoUQ/jlfpmCf9HxB3w9hAcvDNyE6vbq/6OBn+v17E2UX9YjOjG8 lcJw79CcKzyYBCMpeam5mtsxkfszNP+adhBChsMPQEcNYYhKzl7oaY/4mkxkgn2qg/Fl XGTyaXp4SnbYjOdhxvqUHnA78podfiX5YsUB0oeUawzPzNad/d4zfOPyV+PL1cKPrJ/o D1oqcSD5B9tLJ9hgG2x2MNvaOONMXJLw5k8PR8a3Y5E0LQzqVuQnltl5aI0PHdUnHir7 X3mQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id ap10mr18650596lbc.23.1392689417663; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 18:10:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 18:10:17 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 21:10:17 -0500
Message-ID: <>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <>
To: Nico Williams <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c373ec05b7de04f2a4c6e3
Cc: Paul Hoffman <>, JSON WG <>
Subject: Re: [Json] Nudging the English-language vs. formalisms discussion forward
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 02:10:26 -0000

On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 8:16 PM, Nico Williams <>wrote;wrote:

> 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.


I would prefer standards track to be limited to actual protocols and
mandatory to implement features of protocols. We don't need to agree on the
schema unless it goes over the wire.

I really want to avoid getting to the point where we pass JSON schemas or
references to schema over the wire like we do with .xsd. That does
absolutely no good in any situation I am aware of.

One other point, I was needing a quick HTTP client for a part of an app so
I just realized I can adjust my JSON schema tool to generate code to parse
headers in a HTTP response. It is a little messier than JSON parsing as
HTTP headers are not quite as regular as JSON. But it is quite easy to
avoid messing with EBNF with a few hints to give the variant of the

[Of course I since my Web Services are JSON data in a HTTP wrapper, having
JSON data in a JSON wrapper is quite attractive. More attractive still is
JSON-C encoding on the inner and outer wrappers. Thus finessing both
HTTP/2.0 and CORE]