Re: [Json] Schemas & so on

Austin William Wright <> Mon, 02 May 2016 18:11 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0555212D5CF for <>; Mon, 2 May 2016 11:11:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OBiv54-hNaLS for <>; Mon, 2 May 2016 11:11:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D2C8E12D5D6 for <>; Mon, 2 May 2016 11:11:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id f74so72899883qge.2 for <>; Mon, 02 May 2016 11:11:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=EEmUzGOG8A6lWq0imstBn9Pnh11ME9y4YdrJ/owZI2A=; b=3+M8MY7ZQVFXdB5+m3hHO45k/gOwtxur6yfl7KtIcwqZ2xkvP++YR9ttwfdZQBiZFe omQ4wed+MhsakBT7U6vHyqPpxTvNmr0J0xnxvHgqet9m3y3HVgy4zeonQYpNz7vsAM6b CuBx+0YaqrohmalhTagxoOquzLyNb8GwUGy/E=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=EEmUzGOG8A6lWq0imstBn9Pnh11ME9y4YdrJ/owZI2A=; b=OhUQvwXYFTD2PPmaf5U+41uGEI0DJf+A2sDNpqeYPwqrpXytqSBlJO8aSw/U6Gno93 ekvmEuFUyAoFFTiFMa2A7OQ2KLJQFoCMXDCtRkoyzgkQ4PmTHkvzEckF2ZFPNkbycA4l UoD8XoFM9vE26nV0dimnD2ECf3SOoygsL7DdPX9EpPuT/BhxkSn0rrdhLORiGo3dSmN7 oJIbVP20xz8O30nGuG1OnE5UQ/TyVZWB4/j/bnCvL7Ctd7oICa2AvnjHZea0sqvhib9x flUm/G5Ya/SP0YpueAvjSHY4zcW3IctKY/H53F0Rb1/9DwCe1It+Oipoy50O3KU9za1I vEIQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FWmRGuqgoSXOuDJW4RGKwrZkkmrbx32J7Fce9urcR5W9j0X+RMeOC0L61Ded5gCjigy8Z8vqx1vMZ5NTw==
X-Received: by with SMTP id v77mr34891082qhb.53.1462212701825; Mon, 02 May 2016 11:11:41 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 2 May 2016 11:11:27 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
From: Austin William Wright <>
Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 11:11:27 -0700
Message-ID: <>
To: Tim Bray <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11373632adfd710531dfeca7
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: Mon, 02 May 2016 18:11:45 -0000

On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 1:55 PM, 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?

JSON Schema _is_ an active and ongoing effort. But as is usually the case
with anything powerful and self-descriptive, there's a lot of problems that
will crop up, a tiny few of which we've identified for the next release,
but still certainly plenty more. This is compounded by the fact JSON Schema
is hypermedia.

We're actively soliciting feedback for a release at the GitHub repo:

We'd like to hear what relative weaknesses you've encountered, and
comparisons to other technologies. As far as tooling goes, there's a
standard test suite, and as far as I'm aware JSON Schema has more
implementations than anything else.


Austin Wright.