On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 7:55 AM, Slaven Rezic <sre...@cpan.org> wrote: > David Golden wrote: >> >> On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 9:31 AM, Graham Barr <gb...@pobox.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Oct 9, 2009, at 6:43 AM, David Golden wrote: >>> >>>> 05. Schema >>>> >>>> Proposal: >>>> >>>> The META spec should come along with a formal schema definition. >>>> (SlavenRezic) >>> >>> I am not so much concerned about a formal schema. But an official module >>> to validate, or purge bad data, would be great. otherwise users end up >>> having to write very defensive code (ie making sure hash/array references >>> are >>> as expected). being able to validate first will simplify code for many >>> people >> >> I like the idea of a formal schema, but don't see it as a critical >> priority, since it doesn't change the spec. Once we have 2.0 "done", >> then a formal schema could be tacked on and it's still 2.0. > > I like to see this process done in parallel. So it can be made sure that > the specification actually may be expressed as a formal schema. > >> As part of the implementation process, I would like to have an >> "official" generator/parser-validator created. > > If you have a schema, then the validator and generator are already > available. Nothing to do anything specially.
+1
