Re: [Json] Possible next work for the WG

["Markus Lanthaler" <[e-mail]>]

On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 6:54 PM, John Cowan
> Paul Hoffman scripsit:
> 
> > - I-JSON (a profile of JSON with some interoperability issues nailed
down)
> >
> > - Best practices document for JSON implementers and folks who use JSON
> > in protocols
> 
> I think these are both worthy ideas, though perhaps they can be merged.

Completely agree


> > - Canonicalization rules so that two JSON texts can be compared for
> equality
> 
> I think we should explore this, but it's going to be tricky.

+0


> > - Requirements for JSON schema (which will be needed before the WG
> > considers working on an actual schema)
> 
> As reinvented wheels are often hexagonal, I think if we are going to
> do this we should adopt draft-zyp-json-schema-04 as a base document
> for further work.  This has now expired, but is still available at
> <https://raw.github.com/fge/json-schema-
> validator/master/misc/specs/draft-zyp-json-schema-04.txt>.

I don't think we should start work on this without someone (better yet, a
group of people) actively pushing for it. Just look at the history of JSON
Schema..


> I note that this draft proposes "application/schema+json" as the media
> type for JSON schemas.  That leads me to believe we should make
> "*/*+json"
> official, parallel to "*/*+xml" per RFC 3023.  I'll post on that
> separately.

That has already been done in RFC6839


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler