[boomlinde]

I agree with that, but I am correct in pointing out that the scope of this project covers things that WSDL does not, and in that sense it isn't like WSDL. When someone asks a question that can easily be answered in terms of differences I think it's completely reasonable to point those out.

Perhaps my parent intended for the question to be rhetorical, with the implied answer being "Yes, I'm silly for reinventing the wheel" in which case the differences between this project and WSDL are an also an obvious defense of it.

[biot]

The comment you replied to said:

  > Right, the format affords generic description documents
  > from which to generate client code. This seems very
  > similar in spirit to WSDL. No?

The word "this" in the second sentence clearly refers to "the format". To reword the parent:

  > The JSON format used by this project seems very similar
  > in spirit to WSDL. No?

So while you're correct that the entirety of the project (JSON format + code generation) is greater in scope than just WSDL, you took exception to a claim the parent did not make. You could equally have said:

  > The JSON format used by this project is not a method in
  > itself for actually generating the client code, though.
  > It's simply a (barely) machine readable description of
  > the API from which [the project's code-generating client]
  > decides how to deal with it.

I don't think anyone thought otherwise.