Re: [Json] Nudging the English-language vs. formalisms discussion forward

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Wed, 19 February 2014 17:31 UTC

Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.com>
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 5DC7C1A0249 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 09:31:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.378
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.378 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] 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 4lD6r49AMfLY for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 09:30:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from homiemail-a90.g.dreamhost.com (mailbigip.dreamhost.com [208.97.132.5]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B1AC1A040C for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 09:30:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from homiemail-a90.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a90.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B22402AC09C for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 09:30:54 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h= mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from :to:cc:content-type; s=cryptonector.com; bh=dK4IrUbExbmWpQbN6l0b AYWGFPA=; b=poOb535JU79bIzF3iFW5H2l1xcMmf+f+AB57+28pgoMLXkCnWQGf e7yE215d4GDkzbjov/eJnhDuIOgN4BDcCrBEu0MP+D0L30ooU0mq+aOYmiwRbhnf AtnRU7MuWFcdt4uQmA4eistpFOLDrK32/wtLVSj5xu3dIlUgvctHDXs=
Received: from mail-wi0-f180.google.com (mail-wi0-f180.google.com [209.85.212.180]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by homiemail-a90.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 409DE2AC093 for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 09:30:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wi0-f180.google.com with SMTP id hm4so871782wib.7 for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 09:30:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=9OAICQIEDEMZOk6+/q9w1jIiriZC3+U996be/XUh14g=; b=HHmqPmoycgetWahm2dvHyYM0gmqg1JyTHgSZ7wQ+VPkiIM5ZKAI1SgR8xzcaxwEvOL HpEXwSFZlYNcLfcXJI9O371SvOSn1ord+oHzNrNQp0S4Ql9NWKtVyiRahZJA3hmeSrP8 Ey5KI6kCcqADIRy/W07sGbixsxRPZQkf2iGzLm/LD0Yj9qyy+2A7MVmKZxF09qFx35XH 3LpQSUg8YWbRpEHaSnneE3dnRTgEcvuTsWu3dAUDOD4dVfIZ1O3XMcIW8y6dAyex+vOS 98INioqO+TqVqI+pPqpARNikjRpGTp4H+54bpHzHUhBJcoNat7K6op0S7hr/yyEser0H vKrA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.98.35 with SMTP id ef3mr2653724wib.39.1392831050275; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 09:30:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.217.108.132 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 09:30:50 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20140219163059.GA18485@mercury.ccil.org>
References: <C87F9B96-E028-4F0E-A950-B39D3F68FFE7@vpnc.org> <CAMm+LwhUh_yN-hzaoDWfrO_H2iGvYvj99BCE4EcYmgqCPqXoVQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAHBU6itpttXBfVQGKw=u==k_XSdrht81+m_YDNZP6RM+=9CNow@mail.gmail.com> <20140219163059.GA18485@mercury.ccil.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 11:30:50 -0600
Message-ID: <CAK3OfOjzVJRVzZbj+MtsX4CNEpK70eYSdu6boQKxJmWLdrCH=g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/l_ADydc39ZaDwBryXEedUrC9XX0
Cc: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, JSON WG <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] Nudging the English-language vs. formalisms discussion forward
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: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 17:31:00 -0000

On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 10:30 AM, John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> wrote:
> Tim Bray scripsit:
>
>> I feel that successful Internet interoperation is achieved at the level of
>> syntax; clear specification of which bytes should be sent and which
>> returned.
>
>   It took me years to realise how deep and important the divide is between
>   wanting an SDK and wanting to know the underlying protocol. Too much of
>   our biz can only see one of these realities. I grew up with networked
>   minicomputers and (mostly) Unix, and maybe that's why, in the final
>   analysis, I always want to see the bits on the wire, because in the
>   final analysis, given any programmable device, I can work with them.
>         --Tim Bray, some time before 2001

I'll grant that SDK-only protocols are bad in this context: because
the protocols then are proprietary (whereas we're the IETF, and we do
open protocols).  I don't see what the problem is with open protocols
with abstract APIs... or, for that matter, message descriptions in
some formal (or even ad-hoc but not just English prose) syntaxes.

Nor do I see the relevance of the above quote to this thread: it's yet
another non-sequitur.

I get that some don't want any JSON schemas, to which my answer is: so
don't use them.  But please refrain from fallacious arguments.

Nico
--