Re: [Json] Proposed document set from this WG

Francis Galiegue <fgaliegue@gmail.com> Wed, 20 February 2013 01:00 UTC

Return-Path: <fgaliegue@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 652BC21F86FC for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 17:00:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.488
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.488 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.111, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tu82KS4e2YUb for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 17:00:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ee0-f48.google.com (mail-ee0-f48.google.com [74.125.83.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3082D21F86F0 for <json@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 17:00:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ee0-f48.google.com with SMTP id t10so3861211eei.21 for <json@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 17:00:33 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=icDl94A36aWZC2Qmk6NiB65BNEHMWCaCs7DNLnNZ7U8=; b=W5eJMicZXT9cy1FCGmV+elVvfzOaSO23NpYiSyzOxS80nXyrAeocZ8uPKd1cSbs4uL nKZ+hA49ZpJ7sMGer0VjWAz/p9PeAwLKW1flFSEpn1mBWri2abN3fKqa6nwC+lQdndot 0+qhRH4Vq0b2ZwMQA1upwmN07pA3BmCS7u1IYVQYGvpUowngGjI660pg8XudTOrbtYCV vMssi3SKMFcnx+g7lBA1Blb2YjhUmTOtwh5wTt7DOMhB1iuDFl+iG98LL4SPaph1m4oe J6JMwA7NgMMdJ3wEp70SEFaPNoG+5R6FyBpTWC3odCEZmfR+L5qzMPjzBbtCngk7qqEm FiRA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.14.194.198 with SMTP id m46mr62564991een.8.1361322033375; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 17:00:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.14.1.7 with HTTP; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 17:00:33 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <711B5AAF-4CAB-414C-8553-C84493FB005E@vpnc.org>
References: <711B5AAF-4CAB-414C-8553-C84493FB005E@vpnc.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 02:00:33 +0100
Message-ID: <CALcybBBbConJvO6qHBkhd2P9UCNNL=UyBcABWmF9Wh2KQB9q2A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Francis Galiegue <fgaliegue@gmail.com>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, json@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: geraintluff@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Json] Proposed document set from this WG
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion related to JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\)." <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: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 01:00:35 -0000

Hello,

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 1:47 AM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote:
> Straw-man, personal opinions.
>

Even within this scope, I feel the need to comment as the author of
proposals for #2 and #3 ;)

[...]
>
> 2) JSON value comparison
>    Target: systems that want to compare two JSON values (usually objects) for equivalence
>    Character equivalence rules
>    Unicode normalization (if any)
>    Numeric normalization (if any)
>
> 3) JSON document description
>    Target: systems that want to be sure an incoming document is what they expect it to be
>    Might be schema-like, might just be content rules
>
> Both #2 and #3 are useful, but to a much smaller audience than #1. #2 and #3 are also much more exciting than #1, but that excitement in the XML world has led to efforts that have been actively harmful.
>

This is why I regard input to the current JSON Schema I-Ds as
especially critical. I _think_ right now the core and validation specs
can be steered "back into shape" before it is too late. The hyper
schema specification (author CC:ed) covers a much larger ground, and I
am not sure whether it enters the scope of this particular working
group.

And yes, the current core specification has an attempt at #2. And as
has been coined on this list already, it can be improved upon.

> 4) JSON patching and testing
>    Target: systems that use JSON as a data model and need to change data
>
> #4 is even more marginal than #2 and #3, but would need to be done in a JSON-focused WG.
>

I fail to see how "and testing" differs from #3 here? Are you
referring to the "test" operation of the current JSON Patch I-D?

Cheers,
-- 
Francis Galiegue, fgaliegue@gmail.com
Try out your JSON Schemas: http://json-schema-validator.herokuapp.com