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

Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> Wed, 19 February 2014 17:19 UTC

Return-Path: <tbray@textuality.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 E9AA21A04FF for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 09:19:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 QwO1e7UWyUQV for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 09:19:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ve0-f176.google.com (mail-ve0-f176.google.com [209.85.128.176]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 850041A04CC for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 09:19:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ve0-f176.google.com with SMTP id jx11so689599veb.35 for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 09:19:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=s8tox5puk05bqL6zkjchOW5OiIAXX08+7LOFlWnLK34=; b=bejxtKKBuYiqV2UCvRFifaPdQkBQ9tqlwXXC+v9xlcNTatY1mS+gbGdsNZH8c1W1Ge 8dl1IbBCd8ixVAR5/XbWWefJzqGPLQ7ugfzouWbWnMdRxwwpSCXj0D9+SeIzuwN5SuDU LpE1HeWDP//tEbJ3gZdL2wylx2MMtpmROxEJwG1pk2oI3kM1rgJfqoL0chxCDRgao+Ea wT0Y3oQunMQzdtY7hy9g/rlFrai/rJTbGW1vmuicsn7d197i003/y0dwfls6GSKeHjrN 3HhT0ubr1jaw3fnjXf3uFTrnvARM9A8LNw7XB03xxmvr+OzYq/nus9gewYPfiiEc28+I B86w==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmTqifjam1cjOFv+jbcP7GprYxsnUgWhIn2HZXxrHzxvlp0j74XQWjLGz54Fo4WvfZFfZBZ
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.220.71.20 with SMTP id f20mr1147249vcj.70.1392830339995; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 09:18:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.220.98.73 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 09:18:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Originating-IP: [24.84.235.32]
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+LwibiSDmymjt544kykhoXdMyR49uhMDLzzvwcBAaw_7oSw@mail.gmail.com>
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> <CAMm+LwibiSDmymjt544kykhoXdMyR49uhMDLzzvwcBAaw_7oSw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 09:18:59 -0800
Message-ID: <CAHBU6isBoWgwXDpuE3BztFB1z_5xFzQMcgeqBiygTdnmDcS5pg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b33dc44a5dc3504f2c59529
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/o_buNlu3rWKcP0KH8ezFwcpySEY
Cc: 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 17:19:06 -0000

On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 8:52 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>wrote;wrote:

>
> The point is to focus the discussion on the data going over the wire
> rather than the syntax.
>
>
> When the discussion is about syntax, that is usually a specification
> smell. Take HTTP's weak e-tags
>
> ETag: W/"who/ordered/this"
>
> Now syntax is the very least of the issues that ETags raise. But the
> resort to this particular syntax should have at least been a hint of the
> problems to come.
>
> Another peculiarity of the HTTP spec, there are two encodings for dates
> that parsers must support. Both contain completely useless information (why
> does a machine need to know the day of the week anyway). Both are
> needlessly verbose but we are talking about compressing headers rather than
> not sending irrelevant data. If people had not got into the weeds on syntax
> we might have come up with a better caching model.
>
>
> I don't see the value in having multiple encodings for a Web Service. But
> I would much rather do that than end up with two separate specifications
> because one group wanted ASN.1 and the other XML or some people want JSON
> and others must have XML.
>
> XML Web services have a whole ecology that some people are very heavily
> bought into. They really can't use a specification that doesn't play nice
> with that system.
>
> JSON is the future for new work. But just as the PKIX people had a point
> when they asked for an ASN.1 version of KEYPROV, there are going to be
> people whose existing infrastructure is XML who want to make use of work
> being done by a WG producing a JSON spec.
>
>
> The point is that the function of this group and any other platform level
> group is to support the work of the IETF WGs and the other groups that want
> to build on top. If we can provide them with a mechanism that allows them
> to provide a smooth transition path to the common encoding syntax, that
> helps them meet their goals.
>
>
> --
> Website: http://hallambaker.com/
>