IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] JSON Patch: Shortening operation names?

Tony Hansen <tony@att.com> Tue, 06 December 2011 03:45 UTC

Return-Path: <tony@att.com>
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 7FA291F0C81 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Dec 2011 19:45:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 Hj9E1-vmUyl7 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Dec 2011 19:45:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail120.messagelabs.com (mail120.messagelabs.com [216.82.250.83]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A004F1F0C77 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Dec 2011 19:45:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Env-Sender: tony@att.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-12.tower-120.messagelabs.com!1323143133!38288099!1
X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.145]
X-StarScan-Version: 6.4.2; banners=-,-,-
X-VirusChecked: Checked
Received: (qmail 11150 invoked from network); 6 Dec 2011 03:45:33 -0000
Received: from sbcsmtp6.sbc.com (HELO mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.145) by server-12.tower-120.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 6 Dec 2011 03:45:33 -0000
Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id pB63k1BU024930 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Dec 2011 22:46:01 -0500
Received: from alpd052.aldc.att.com (alpd052.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id pB63jolZ024778 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Dec 2011 22:45:54 -0500
Received: from aldc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pB63jLCF019064 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Dec 2011 22:45:21 -0500
Received: from mailgw1.maillennium.att.com (dns.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pB63jGlx018558 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Dec 2011 22:45:18 -0500
Received: from [135.70.93.52] (vpn-135-70-93-52.vpn.swst.att.com[135.70.93.52]) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with ESMTP id <20111206034401gw100e4ld9e> (Authid: tony); Tue, 6 Dec 2011 03:44:02 +0000
X-Originating-IP: [135.70.93.52]
Message-ID: <4EDD8FCB.6040502@att.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2011 22:45:15 -0500
From: Tony Hansen <tony@att.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
References: <1323136558.12382.28.camel@neutron>
In-Reply-To: <1323136558.12382.28.camel@neutron>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------060606070602080602000008"
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] JSON Patch: Shortening operation names?
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, 06 Dec 2011 03:45:36 -0000

I believe it was Ken Thompson, when asked what he would have changed 
about unix, who said he would have spelled "creat" with an "e" at the end.

     Tony Hansen
     tony@att.com

On 12/5/2011 8:55 PM, Paul C. Bryan wrote:
> It's been suggested on more than one occasion that the operation names 
> in JSON Patch are too verbose. I've countered with the point that if 
> you transmit via HTTP and "Content-Encoding: gzip", the verbosity is 
> nicely compressed out. This argument has served me well (insofar as it 
> tends to silence most critics), but I continue to get challenged on 
> this point. I'm curious to know what position APPSAWG members may 
> have. Should I use "rm" or even "-" instead of the more verbose "remove"?

  * English - detected
  * English

  * English

<javascript:void(0);>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email