Re: [Json] Schema Requirements (Was: Re: Nudging the English-language vs. formalisms discussion forward)

[Phillip Hallam-Baker <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 11:55 AM, Pete Cordell <[e-mail]>wrote:

> My position is that, having recognised that Dates represent a case where
> microformats are useful, perhaps we should not assume that these are the
> only cases.  IP addresses?  Crypto OIDs?  Dates on Mars?
>

All I am saying is that it is a slippery slope.

There are two ways to go down a slippery slope, not at all or on skis.

Skis: I will add a new type, 'Format <Name>' that declares a string with
the named sub-format which can be documented elsewhere in ABNF.


This also solves my 50 shades of yuck problem trying to parse HTTP headers
with all the mindboggling syntax baroqueness. Sometimes a label has quotes,
sometimes not, sometimes angle braces. There is no logic at all just like
there is no logic to the choice of attributes or elements in XML2RFC format.


Exactly.  It's saying there's something special here that is beyond my (the
> JSON schema's) ability to define.  It's also admitting that it's a rare
> case and the JSON schema doesn't want to be able to define it.  However,
> just because it doesn't want to do it, doesn't mean it wants to prevent you
> from defining something if it's useful to you.  EBNF with narrative in an
> RFC would be a suitable way to define it's format.
>

Or a reference to some other spec where it was predefined.

That would also provide a way to deal with enumerations which I have
currently punted on.


-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/