Re: [Json] Schemas & so on

Mark Nottingham <> Tue, 03 May 2016 00:10 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AC8012D6A6 for <>; Mon, 2 May 2016 17:10:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.602
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kmk76XujZ_aZ for <>; Mon, 2 May 2016 17:10:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6385012D53B for <>; Mon, 2 May 2016 17:10:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (unknown []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6902322E25B; Mon, 2 May 2016 20:10:03 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Mark Nottingham <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 10:10:00 +1000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
To: Tim Bray <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [Json] Schemas & so on
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 03 May 2016 00:10:09 -0000


This general area of discussion came up in the IETF maybe two years ago; can dig around in archives if people are interested, but IIRC it was mostly hallway-based.

I'd characterise the general feeling then as "run away screaming"; the wounds of XSD / WS-* were too fresh.

It came up again more recently (again, the hallway track), and the feeling I got was that people were more amenable to it, but still concerned about the numerous pitfalls.

It strikes me that it might be worth writing down what we think is good in such a beast, and what would be not-good. Getting agreement on that might be... interesting, but if we had such a document (or maybe just a wiki page), we'd be able to evaluate the current contenders, at least.


> On 2 May 2016, at 6:55 AM, Tim Bray <> wrote:
> I find myself tasked with specifying a JSON-based DSL and preparing it for public release, with a validator and so on.  
> I had never really concerned myself much with options for JSON language definition, but have discovered they’re not very good.  The JSON Schema project is not terribly appealing - opaque spec, poor documentation and tools - and smells of neglect (last I-D expired in 2013).  It's been suggested that a good approach would be just to write a jq program that emits true or false.
> Is there good conventional wisdom about formally specifying a JSON dialect?
> -- 
> - Tim Bray (If you’d like to send me a private message, see
> _______________________________________________
> json mailing list

Mark Nottingham