- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2016 22:08:33 +0200
- To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
- Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
If containers are only allowed to contain simple types, the need for a schema language diminishes quite a bit; headers can be defined pretty easily in prose, perhaps with references to registries where appropriate. Personally, the discussion below makes me think that's a good thing... > On 2 Aug 2016, at 9:46 PM, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote: > > Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >> I don't have an informed opinion about CDDL at this point, but >> having two parallel specifications sounds like a clas^H^H^H^Hantiquity >> mistake to me. >> >> How do you plan to make sure they both say the same thing ? > > You generate the JSON one from the original CDDL source when you need it. > (The JSON version is for interchange between tools working on instances > of the specification language, not for humans to work on it. Of course > it is not hard to write a CDDL parser, but it is even easier to ingest > JSON from an existing CDDL parser, and standardizing this intermediate > format together with the language sounds like a good idea and is simple > enough to do.) > > Grüße, Carsten > -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 2 August 2016 20:11:19 UTC