IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Json] Schemas & so on

Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> Sun, 01 May 2016 22:02 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 B184212D195 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 May 2016 15:02:57 -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 QG3AS2JPPWuX for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 May 2016 15:02:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-x236.google.com (mail-qk0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::236]) (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 EB3D612D193 for <json@ietf.org>; Sun, 1 May 2016 15:02:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk0-x236.google.com with SMTP id x7so66912156qkd.3 for <json@ietf.org>; Sun, 01 May 2016 15:02:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=textuality-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=d94jD9ma0GkgsY9GwunogVc5lw7D7Dyutdr2i1J8vvk=; b=yY/ZrgIHpvoT+8Ha7yZNh4r7WuBidqKXwdzLB36+/jSfLl1H3arnzfmUh3GLCffa1e 92NNbMAXsZaRAIA2audYHK+CsRMQteC/sjQByK7bAW/kkd+qS1sOEluigqDjk7ia9qL6 gBJkO2yPOkcm2ACKmfIyev5M9+9wMwVos5tAmgYd4jRH4JH1+fbPxEbC3tdxCiKM+gm8 5dveaAyJn+7Ln/kbm/NqXnAObMcNAgp0tUn7crcOCI0kbClQvBE+uAQChXCOJ1DlmlT9 rgALbMvMBSLnrZm5yp999xByYvEAoGN/9kOKLTMTWNU7w06B7JTcGD12fYn9pN6h5jk9 WwTg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=d94jD9ma0GkgsY9GwunogVc5lw7D7Dyutdr2i1J8vvk=; b=h5yD3dIqH58s8CodInN2q8n/SicgU18DaO113eoZMIZFbjZwBji2a8UIMpMDHXKHZz e1ByqHRXfund4k9K9kWQ9CLESU+wFs0V6tDF6KOpiMA2kXTKCejJ3vAumRuj1Nthj1eZ lCsQp+WevbgZr/hsSVGRh9AWR6oLEWW66WGkmhF7K2vvi/jwvsa8Wzf+PmPyd4yE8X/V k5F28bA5/FvOTV4xbUOxUo+4mwQUH58JN8BXn8jwYghM+Kud8LoGtJY9cvbV1iOtKxWl hE2+CI2SU5ExTyk1D+ZEiCnVoVdP8jyDVDdA9cX35VeUVZh7WG2ps8wcPz5T4PEcRJ8j toTw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FXkQ1AOJcG/atCEsfQABbDSHqhTDHWUCIe0/L1sZGvYb5xVQi6Eonb+10sXUZOioc/jb1l81KjC/Zur0A==
X-Received: by 10.55.72.196 with SMTP id v187mr29513661qka.97.1462136150456; Sun, 01 May 2016 13:55:50 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.140.94.201 with HTTP; Sun, 1 May 2016 13:55:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [24.84.248.61]
From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Date: Sun, 01 May 2016 13:55:31 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHBU6itCV9MXmALdKtE9-vjUPG6-6ZqdqzrmZkcEzSUysi3S-w@mail.gmail.com>
To: "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114a7f88dc96b60531ce1927"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/gsV4zzI-mbQHzaCi_aV-tGwSKA4>
Subject: [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: Sun, 01 May 2016 22:02:57 -0000

I find myself tasked with specifying a JSON-based DSL and preparing it for
public release, with a validator and so on.

I had never really concerned myself much with options for JSON language
definition, but have discovered they’re not very good.  The JSON Schema
project is not terribly appealing - opaque spec, poor documentation and
tools - and smells of neglect (last I-D expired in 2013).  It's been
suggested that a good approach would be just to write a jq program that
emits true or false.

Is there good conventional wisdom about formally specifying a JSON dialect?

-- 
- 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