IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] feedback on draft-ietf-appsawg-json-patch-01.txt

"Paul C. Bryan" <pbryan@anode.ca> Tue, 20 March 2012 21:01 UTC

Return-Path: <pbryan@anode.ca>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBAF321F85D9 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 14:01:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7kddBYYykuN6 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 14:01:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from maple.anode.ca (maple.anode.ca [72.14.183.184]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 646D421F8624 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 14:01:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.11.246] (unknown [209.52.95.5]) by maple.anode.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A2FF8616A for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 21:01:35 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <1332277294.2171.25.camel@neutron>
From: "Paul C. Bryan" <pbryan@anode.ca>
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 14:01:34 -0700
In-Reply-To: <4F68D295.2040401@gmx.de>
References: <20120309212231.16366.52439.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4F689626.9070500@gmx.de> <1332261146.2171.7.camel@neutron> <4F68B37E.9060608@gmx.de> <1332262482.2171.11.camel@neutron> <4F68BDB7.7030808@gmx.de> <1332269074.2171.21.camel@neutron> <4F68D295.2040401@gmx.de>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=-b9yZg7DKhNpijgbagVsa"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.2-1
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] feedback on draft-ietf-appsawg-json-patch-01.txt
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 21:01:37 -0000

On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 19:55 +0100, Julian Reschke wrote:


> So is the intent to define the fragment identifier syntax for 
> application/json or not?


It wasn't my intent originally, though your concerns have me think that
perhaps we should consider it. It was to define a fragment identifier
syntax, which other specifications (e.g. JSON Schema, JSON Reference)
can reference.


> If it is, we need to normatively update the JSON RFC, and need to make 
> sure there's really consensus on this.


Question: Do you think it should?


> If it is not, the way the Pointer spec currently is written is very 
> confusing.


Any text suggestions to resolve this?

Paul

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email