Hash-pinned schemas are definitely the right direction for ensuring verifiable provenance across distributed systems. Great concept!

why can't you use hash pinned schemas with existing json? Why do you need a new format for it?

    {
        'schema': 'c3ab8ff13720e8ad9047dd39466b3c8974e592c2fa383d4a3960714caef0c4f2',
        'data': []
    }

when will be xson invented, with support of xpathson and xsdson but strictly leaving out other xml features.. for future improvement?

Seems like it draws a lot of inspiration from EDN. Tagged literals, commas-as-whitespace (and optional), and anything-can-be-a-key are features I sorely miss when I have to go back to JSON.

Don't know how I feel about optional quotes around strings, that seems like a mistake. And having an immutable set literal would be nice as well.

If the author is here, the Github repo in https://litterat.io/ should be https://github.com/litterat

Absolute slop. Interesting that the end result, the place where Claude ended up, is similar to a (human-authored, windmill-tilting) project of mine, https://preserves.dev/ . Though with a much prettier website and far, far, far more words.

I think I'm gonna go back to XSLT

you can just add schema to json why add new syntax now, especially for json I dont think it makes sense I honestly believe the war is over there won't be a xml to json moment unless we move to a new platform other than browsers which seem rather unlikely, json honestly is fine for something that's somewhat human readable...

great another shitty JSON variant. now I'll have 9 different json-like libraries in every project that I can't get rid of.