Re: [Json] JSL: Clarifying purpose, and renaming it to JDDF

Proposed schema types for JDDF purposes:

Fixed-length strings and bounded strings: both useful in contexts where
dynamic memory allocation is not allowed for performance, security, or
low-memory reasons.

Fixed-length and bounded arrays: same reasoning.

Tuples:  These are fixed-length JSON arrays where each element potentially
has its own type.  They can be translated into languages that don't have
them natively (as Python does) using a struct/class with synthetic field
names like element0, element1, ... or just _0, _1, ....

On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 3:57 PM Ulysse Carion <ulysse@segment.com> wrote:

> Hi folks,
>
> I want to continue to thank y'all for the attention to detail provided
> in past iterations of JSL. The new I-D is published here:
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ucarion-jddf-00
>
> The name of JSON Schema Language has been changed to JSON Data
> Definition Format ("JDDF"). This is to avoid confusion with "JSON
> Schema". The JSON Schema folks asked that I changed the name, and I
> don't mind doing so. Sorry for the confusion.
>
> The most important changes are to the introduction. I've clarified
> what JDDF's niche is (code generation), as well as my position on what
> seems to be ideal for a schema language optimized for code generation:
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ucarion-jddf-00#section-1
>
> I fear we may be at loggerheads on the question of {"type":"int53"}. I
> continue to prefer for its omission from the spec. James, Carsten --
> might we ultimately have to agree to disagree on this question? It
> seems easier to later on add int53 than to later remove it.
>
> Best,
> Ulysse
>
> _______________________________________________
> json mailing list
> json@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>