Re: [Json] Proposed document set from this WG

[Francis Galiegue <[e-mail]>]

Hello,

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 1:47 AM, Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]> 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, [e-mail]
Try out your JSON Schemas: http://json-schema-validator.herokuapp.com