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

Andrew Newton <> Thu, 20 February 2014 02:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4348D1A0627 for <>; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 18:39:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.978
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HePMgQw0k-3l for <>; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 18:39:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3189D1A0636 for <>; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 18:39:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id kx10so1257023pab.35 for <>; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 18:39:26 -0800 (PST)
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:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=pbAwuKkmLmWN7CSDcil9xIKwoFclFXKgFfa9F6p9tQM=; b=BmrjhSQq3Rl6Cb36K3AOyohmWxCqtzENkm1KMkgYQ7xx9F07nA6A3tbFx5VSRgNSkx j+rMB2ccWyRtU1snlYXPIRkK6sswTH4KS7NBtohMkaRfvXWHcoXNCuf1F/bnrloHT8At on9T8oqWRxC2a5FvgmaM1jhTsPf+crQQW8JmlaNoS9W4nTDqVFYxaR3n4nHrYvZGaGKX DOALrTcsNa1K9Xd90rCWty2JB0atOb0c/y0gnyfs7Tsh6Ay0TsiaJuYN0rauGWfU65y8 JMo93LtFSo6VxUFyxHMQjDL6YY1N1XQSOBJZ2MggyIbUh0RwxOafKJYjTDvw2/lF08tV XVsw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlU8uFadkjS6HOnaWfxmdssv6DoPcgQk9+ldbCfKKVV8nADoE/zpuhWE+yyyr99m87CSan0
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id tm4mr6019870pac.114.1392863966891; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 18:39:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 18:39:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Originating-IP: []
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 21:39:26 -0500
Message-ID: <>
From: Andrew Newton <>
To: Paul Hoffman <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: JSON WG <>
Subject: Re: [Json] Nudging the English-language vs. formalisms discussion forward
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 02:39:32 -0000

I wouldn't mind 10 minutes to explain the motivations behind the JSON
Content Rules draft, many of which parallel some of the excellent
points that have been made in this thread.


On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 7:23 PM, Paul Hoffman <> wrote:
> It's been a week, and yet I can't imagine that everything has been said with respect to our proposed charter item that now stands at:
>    A set of natural-language terms and/or phrases for use in future specifications
>    that use JSON. This explicitly excludes schema languages and similar formalisms.
> After that, a bunch of people started talking about formalisms and actual schemas again. In order to get this decided, we need more discussion and then agreement. To that end, and to put our 90 minutes on Friday afternoon in London to best use, I will ask for at least three people to present their views in 10-minute presentations at the meeting. However, in order to cause this to not be the normal IETF "let's wait for the meeting" game, the presentations need to be done by next Monday, Feb. 24. That gives people on the list a preview of what will be said, time to argue about it, and time for the presenters to hone their slides if they want.
> Let me know online or offline if you want to do a presentation. If you're not going to be at the meeting but want to say something, you need to find some like-minded soul with whom to work on the presentation.
> --Paul Hoffman
> _______________________________________________
> json mailing list