IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Json] Call for WG Consensus on Whether or Not to Adopt Nomenclature Document(s) in the Charter

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Sat, 15 March 2014 12:56 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
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 50DC11A012F for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Mar 2014 05:56:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.551
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] 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 YXxjA6A797R3 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Mar 2014 05:56:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFC981A012E for <json@ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Mar 2014 05:56:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de
Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s2FCtldG024214; Sat, 15 Mar 2014 13:55:47 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [192.168.217.105] (p54890704.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.137.7.4]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5FF6E3A5; Sat, 15 Mar 2014 13:55:46 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <5324322B.1030001@drees.name>
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 13:55:43 +0100
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 416580943.313289-6ae989b1de1bd6bc795d503e3a1cae7c
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E148848D-7E99-4925-A045-2B058155EDA4@tzi.org>
References: <53238F2E.5010105@cisco.com> <5324322B.1030001@drees.name>
To: stefan@drees.name
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/fEwuzh1ajAbCfhVNBflYjDAVjgU
Cc: json@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Json] Call for WG Consensus on Whether or Not to Adopt Nomenclature Document(s) in the Charter
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: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 12:56:08 -0000

On 15 Mar 2014, at 11:57, Stefan Drees <stefan@drees.name> wrote:

> additional examples (besides RFC 6962) 

How about the ALTO schema language:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-alto-protocol-27#section-8.2

This is interesting, as its expressivity has been designed (limited) for the specification style at hand.

I haven’t checked this, but it might have worked for the style used in RFC 7071, too.

Grüße, Carsten

v2.30.2 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status