IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Thu, 12 April 2012 14:12 UTC

Return-Path: <mnot@mnot.net>
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 B313921F853C for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Apr 2012 07:12:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-3.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 f0vfeMBEA26n for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Apr 2012 07:12:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net (mxout-07.mxes.net [216.86.168.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E2A221F8535 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Apr 2012 07:12:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.6.129.16] (unknown [50.56.228.67]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E35AE22E253; Thu, 12 Apr 2012 10:12:19 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <4F86E258.3040409@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 09:12:19 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B282BB78-506E-49D1-823E-8E54F2466CE6@mnot.net>
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> <1332277294.2171.25.camel@neutron> <4F68F2F8.7000207@gmx.de> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280949C7@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <4F697B48.1050305@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <4F699B49.1010108@gmx.de> <4F86E258.3040409@gmx.de>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257)
Cc: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
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: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 14:12:27 -0000

On 12/04/2012, at 9:10 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> It would be good if we made up our minds whether we are defining a fragment identifier syntax for application/json or not.
> 
> My proposal is to keep things simple for now and thus not to do it; that implies removing or clarifying the examples in the spec.


+1


--
Mark Nottingham
http://www.mnot.net/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email