[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.