Re: If not JSON, what then ?

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 <> 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

Received on Tuesday, 2 August 2016 20:11:19 UTC