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.