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

["Paul C. Bryan" <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 18:26 +0100, Julian Reschke wrote:

> On 2012-03-20 17:54, Paul C. Bryan wrote:
> > Why remove Section 6? Where are fragment identifiers being used in
> > Appendix A?
> 
> Section 6 says:
> 
> 6. URI Fragment Identifier Representation
> 
>     A JSON Pointer MAY be represented in a URI fragment identifier.
> The
>     JSON pointer MUST be UTF-8 [RFC3629] encoded as octets; octets not
> in
>     the URI "unreserved" set SHOULD be percent-encoded, per [RFC3986],
>     section 2.5.
> 
> What's the point of making this statement? What media type is this
> about?


Okay, sorry, didn't know you were referring to the JSON Pointer spec
when referencing these sections.

The intent of JSON Pointer is to be expressed in a URI fragment
identifier for resources that have JSON representations. To that end, it
makes sense to establish the rules for encoding pointers in URIs.


> Appendix A contains:
> 
>     http://example.com/example.json#/foo/inner%20object
>        Resolves to the object value of the "inner object" member in
> the
>        "foo" object value in the root object.
> 
>     http://example.com/example.json#/foo/inner%20object/baz
>        Resolves to the string value "qux", which is the value of the
>        "baz" member in the "inner object" member in the "foo" member
> in
>        the root object.
> 
>     http://example.com/example.json#/foo/bar/0
>        Resolves to the string value "element0", which is the first
> value
>        in the "bar" array in the "foo" member in the root object.
> 
> ...which to me reads like using JSON pointers as fragment identifiers 
> for payloads of type application/json. If that's not the case, it
> should 
> be clarified somehow.
> 
> Going back two mails you said:
> 
> > I happen to think JSON Pointer should be the pointer syntax for
> fragment identifiers used by JSON Patch, not application/json per se.


I'll now retract this statement. I don't think fragments should have
anything to do with JSON Patch, and there's nothing in the JSON Patch
spec where fragments are in use.


> In that case however the JSON Patch specification should state in the 
> media type registration what the fragment syntax is (see 
> <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-regs-03#appendix-C> 
> fourth item), and the JSON Pointer spec should clarify that both
> Section 
> 6 and the examples in the appendix are about media types that have 
> chosen to use JSON pointer as fragment identifier, which is not the
> case 
> for application/json.


I don't think it makes a lot of sense for JSON Pointer spec to reference
every spec that happens to reference it.


> Right now it's way too easy for people to jump to the conclusion that
> JSON Pointer *is* the fragment identifier syntax for application/json.


Simply based on the JSON Pointer spec text itself?

Paul