IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Json] Schemas & so on

Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> Tue, 03 May 2016 03:28 UTC

Return-Path: <tbray@textuality.com>
X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13EC812D0A0 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 May 2016 20:28:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=textuality-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 B5Y4qjCpNiv1 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 May 2016 20:28:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qg0-x22d.google.com (mail-qg0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2151212B018 for <json@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 May 2016 20:28:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qg0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id f74so3319974qge.2 for <json@ietf.org>; Mon, 02 May 2016 20:28:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=textuality-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=2WXq6Kaknfjs76+izpqh1RI/2MM8w+dFBt8xY6ljSkc=; b=1vTxelz8NWOdNXsChfudWAMMVJcVnmE1GD4m2vuBEBOqiIQWFUVe2kV7Xi4ydPbBJv TpYUDwv9nM98CmKi2ohNYNcka8KKX/o70RRxL2MEFzRHL00sCuzUN9HVxgbbBIkU3uuJ AIiP2nPMmOCOvCTXrmoxNmS5szeLo4RE+4sA5bQB/AOePr6QrPC12RAKTRMisNpjFiRA hydKwx9QkkwfX/LyFqrDeT98zt02vN1UuCS0503yExFFSm8LOq8/jY85HsoyY0dgmvHc Rb8BHO0YcknTU6E2UTpzxucfRnkOf2d4HQJ8z9ZtirVy8pW+wIcYUDpIU4JbeZldaYg0 C3yA==
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:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=2WXq6Kaknfjs76+izpqh1RI/2MM8w+dFBt8xY6ljSkc=; b=S1XvjkyyuwslnIco8BIPlPCSIKQWKFQM0MSPOlbH+nQJn7EaWDOpzBwbMrpwJVQC/l /zAkGRD8upkdIIp43LuS2m8AcbpXhsEVIJr1FZKFLnV/3oFnJrcfVtUntjIvu+qJYg6O VG1xUewJrOhis/Dqxme/ua0VUQxVDuR1LORzff1khTK29c7fwouAbH5/4m2ywgKwShFT DWVRWxB38bBVKQrOvEd3WEYztVfl6A5hNCgb0zsJLaRKs6GkMAaCosLpQlLBCCGkegio oTBTnnmpFBNXwZxviFjpBXQmdvpcWl7NW55OjOrlftMIyYAMTH3cwwukVIFKrP7K9Vbi E8nw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FXPGnwE6Q+8lG8sgSFhgSLEA6Qg/l+nMIuRrMSBADjY+kfSrdP0+DkZxJIAmBWjdkThGaMLyT2lpaboyA==
X-Received: by 10.140.143.144 with SMTP id 138mr121048qhp.88.1462246096268; Mon, 02 May 2016 20:28:16 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.140.94.201 with HTTP; Mon, 2 May 2016 20:27:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [24.84.248.61]
In-Reply-To: <CAChr6SxCS61gWwHO=ubAN3ekLvKO32z=ZWLT6J5j8+_zCZgAXw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHBU6itCV9MXmALdKtE9-vjUPG6-6ZqdqzrmZkcEzSUysi3S-w@mail.gmail.com> <AC93811D-A16A-4527-B2EB-C6A9FC6D4F17@mnot.net> <20160503010109.GA17482@mercury.ccil.org> <EC4D5AC6-2730-4D6A-BE43-91197602C4CC@mnot.net> <CAHBU6ivnmO2T8g2TO3Bqof_3uQ64x6PD86sMTfq0Y-1Wb2ANbw@mail.gmail.com> <CAChr6SxCS61gWwHO=ubAN3ekLvKO32z=ZWLT6J5j8+_zCZgAXw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Date: Mon, 02 May 2016 20:27:56 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHBU6ivBNKoJ4BgxNV8AgGPezHi6Py21qMR7-phDOeHn0LYjLw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11371e562487a40531e7b37c"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/ykbe3ELuWmTOnAhubFF15C-1zGg>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>, "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] Schemas & so on
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 03 May 2016 03:28:19 -0000

On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 8:15 PM, Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com> wrote:

> This discussion has not adequately addressed the fact that there are much
> more efficient ways to encode JSON data if you have a schema. It can be
> protobufs, thrift, cbor, avro, or whatever. They do must-ignorify
> everything, btw.
>
> The IETF is far behind the industry standard here.
>

I suppose, but

1. It is rarely the case that markup serialization/deserialization
efficiency is that significant to the performance of an application, and
2. being binary sucks.

Anyhow, in my day job we want to have a JSON DSL and we want to have a
validator for it, and we think a decent schema language would facilitate
construction of the validator.

​​

​​


>
> - Rob
>



-- 
- Tim Bray (If you’d like to send me a private message, see
https://keybase.io/timbray)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email