Subject: [Json] Proposed agenda for London meeting

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 08:36:45 -0800

http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/89/agenda/agenda-89-json

Matt and I would love to see the nomenclature/not-really-schema discussion continue to happen in the coming weeks, but it feels like a face-to-face meeting might be valuable for it as well.

--Paul Hoffman

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 12:12:00 -0500

I think it will also be an xml2rfc issue or at least the RFC discussions
will gate it.

The reason for having a better RFC format in my view is so that machine
readable parts of specs such as schemas and EBNF can be embedded in a form
that allows tools to extract them and use them.

So we could have a system where you can take an RFC, press a button and
generate an implementation.

We are actually very close to that point already. I just do it in the
opposite direction, I generate the spec from the schema. But there is no
reason that we shouldn't be able to round trip.

On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>wrote:

> Matt and I would love to see the nomenclature/not-really-schema discussion
> continue to happen in the coming weeks, but it feels like a face-to-face
> meeting might be valuable for it as well.
>
> --Paul Hoffman
> _______________________________________________
> json mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>

-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/

---

From: Tim Bray <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 09:24:40 -0800

I sincerely apologize to the WG, but family commitments have me on a plane
out of London as the WG will be meeting.

Between now and the meeting I’ll pull together some I-JSON talking points,
and make myself available in London.