Re: JSON Results doc : First complete draft ready

Edits done.

On 17/05/11 09:26, Steve Harris wrote:
> A quick review:
> 3.1.1 "vars"
> The "var" member - Should be "vars" I think. A variable is not
> necessary ->  A variable is not necessarily
> 3.2.1 "bindings"
> Possibly worth including an example of a solution with no bindings,
> the text /could/ be interpreted as meaning it should be omitted.
> Minor point.

Example added, text reworded.

> In XML it's possible to include runtime warnings and errors inline in
> XML comments without messing up processing. It would be good if there
> was some way to do something similar in JSON, e.g if there was an
> "_comment" key (anything disjoint from variable names) which was
> defined to be ignored. JSON doesn't have "native" comments. Minor
> point.


The XML comments aren't an XML element - different processing model - 
and can go anywhere.

I support there is nothing to stop an implementation adding "_comment" 
or "_warning" or etc if it wants to.

We would have to define where it can go.

We can:
1/ Leave the doc as-is - maximum backwards compatibility
2/ Define a key or keys and add some general text about it can go in any 
3/ Define a key or keys and add to the doc like other keys.

I'm inclined to go for (1) [do nothing]

Are there any examples of system that do add anything to the JSON format?

> Other than that, looks fine.
> - Steve



> On 2011-05-12, at 11:34, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>> There is now a complete 1st draft document (and fairly unchecked).
>> It addresses the comments made (Richard, Michael, Paul) by
>> restructuring the whole document and copying across content from
>> before.  I wil go back and check the comments again but by the time
>> the ties to the XML format are removed, it's a rather different
>> document.
>> I have tried to strike a balance and retained a more informal style
>> but it should also be accurate.
>> If anyone wants to have a go at JSON schema,
>> then please do - I don't plan on doing that
>> this time round.
>> It's time for reviews.  It's not a long document.
>> Andy

Received on Tuesday, 17 May 2011 10:41:14 UTC