Those are simplistic, not suitable for our purpose. - gabor From: ext Vincent Chen [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 11:03 AM To: Bajko Gabor (Nokia-CIC/SiliconValley) Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [paws] JSON encoding
FYI. http://json-schema.org/ Version 4 of the IETF draft is active. - This link references JSON schemas for Geographic Coordinate and Card. I have mixed feelings about re-using when the referenced schema is complex and contains many fields that might not make sense for PAWS. We would end up documenting which portions of those schemas are required, optional, etc. I think that's a case-by-case decision. On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 10:41 AM, <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I scanned through the data which has to be carried by PAWS, and it looks to me that there are two RFCs which we may consider re-using: RFC5491 defines the xml encoding for geo-location, I did not find a JSON encoding for it. The other one is vCard, RFC6350. There is a so called xCard, RFC6351, the xml representation of vCard, but again, I have not found a JSON encoding for vCard. vCard seems to be able to handle contact information, schedule, etc, but there are obviously other data fields, like antenna parameters, which need to be defined in PAWS. First, I'd like to get some opinions on whether the reuse of the data structures defined in the above two RFCs is generally considered a good idea or not. If we want to reuse them, we'll need to define a JSON encoding for those. The alternative is to define the whole data structure with JSON encoding in PAWS. I'd like to hear opinions on which way is more feasible. - Gabor _______________________________________________ paws mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws -- -vince
_______________________________________________ paws mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
