IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Json] Proposed rechartering for the JSON WG

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Sun, 09 February 2014 22:29 UTC

Return-Path: <mnot@mnot.net>
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 269271A0614 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 14:29:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 aM0S7EEiS0Ns for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 14:29:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net (mxout-08.mxes.net [216.86.168.183]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64D761A04CA for <json@ietf.org>; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 14:29:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.55] (unknown [118.209.16.90]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EB3C2509B5; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 17:28:59 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+Lwie3B8+pyXNuuoMn6nWLy7Bva4vmsdZ0b2yTACrUL8xpQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 09:28:55 +1100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B9C98CBC-D63E-4A42-AB4C-9752B3A34C11@mnot.net>
References: <52D9B39C.5020102@cisco.com> <1C1347D2-0D99-4D49-B4C1-199246167D23@vpnc.org> <CAMm+Lwj0phrmP563tBbZJKHeYw=Azh1as6GZOA6rANPpC6PJgA@mail.gmail.com> <CAHBU6iv+-9xQYAjZdfZk7+GeA6J+sjaV5era3L+PiJ9RoauBYg@mail.gmail.com> <CAMm+Lwh0O4+iuaJMUhYgj+0GS8e9b_nZtNNX91hOmjUypsgkTQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAK3OfOhu0GZY9CVQrqD4SyjHLVEoEg1DtYj_6imZbbHtzX2eEw@mail.gmail.com> <CAHBU6iuR0MPm9q483jBMqTRkGV1f2giGNhp+UciQ7rRnrvcEBA@mail.gmail.com> <C271F837-40FD-4E87-A56B-0F0357553923@mnot.net> <7E1F7FE6-E7A9-4B7D-902C-A60D39B7B994@vpnc.org> <8AA70C014EEED3158A177F1C@cyrus.local> <85017697-48CF-420F-9935-B78193953493@tzi.org> <CAMm+Lwie3B8+pyXNuuoMn6nWLy7Bva4vmsdZ0b2yTACrUL8xpQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827)
Cc: Cyrus Daboo <cyrus@daboo.name>, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, JSON WG <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] Proposed rechartering for the JSON WG
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: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 22:29:08 -0000

On 10 Feb 2014, at 5:15 am, Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com> wrote:

> A machine readable specification supported by tools is very useful. But how many people are writing tools? Are we at a stage where it is helpful to converge on one tool?
> 
> https://sourceforge.net/projects/jsonschema/
> 
> My view is that it would be a very bad idea to design such a tool in committee and that there would be negligible value from having the format be declared a standard prematurely. 
> 
> A better way forward would be to publish proposals for schema formats as INFORMATIONAL RFCs and see which get used.

What Phillip said.


--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email