On Mar 6, 2013, at 3:33 PM, Mark Miller <markrmil...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 6, 2013, at 12:08 PM, Steve Rowe <sar...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I'm not sure what pieces you might be missing, sorry. > > My main confusion is around this: > > bq. When schema.xml is present, schema.json (if any) will be ignored. > > Basically, why have schema.json? Perhaps it's just me, but a json schema > seems like a lot harder to deal with as a human than an XML schema file.
Right, absolutely, the existence of schema.json assumes no human editing for exactly this reason, so it's in direct conflict with the need to continue to allow hand editing. > Hence the rest of my comments - just because we don't use the DOM or XML > internally doesn't seem to mean we need to do JSON through the entire > pipeline (eg the serialized representation) I agree. This all revolves around whether the schema serialization is an implementation detail that users don't have to care about. We're not there yet, obviously. Steve
