Re: [apps-discuss] media type for partial JSON updates?

mike amundsen <mamund@yahoo.com> Thu, 29 December 2011 16:58 UTC

Return-Path: <mca@amundsen.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 B569A21F8AFF for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Dec 2011 08:58:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.68
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.68 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FORGED_YAHOO_RCVD=2.297, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 LRlWpt65L-Ew for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Dec 2011 08:58:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pz0-f44.google.com (mail-pz0-f44.google.com [209.85.210.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E1FA21F8AEA for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Dec 2011 08:58:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by dajz8 with SMTP id z8so12634364daj.31 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Dec 2011 08:58:40 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.68.74.33 with SMTP id q1mr86802725pbv.68.1325177920656; Thu, 29 Dec 2011 08:58:40 -0800 (PST)
Sender: mca@amundsen.com
Received: by 10.143.93.9 with HTTP; Thu, 29 Dec 2011 08:58:40 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <4EFC994C.7080307@gmx.de>
References: <4EFC8C98.10901@gmx.de> <CAPW_8m7oLLLVkinrjEdUvtZYjUDM5V9HVtVH_HnhNOBGixHfAQ@mail.gmail.com> <4EFC994C.7080307@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 11:58:40 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: A7-kqjvKvfWMqKE_7eKpHDqjr8g
Message-ID: <CAPW_8m4OJtyHiu5rM6iw37OG=N3QjPuPccCmBCs0vRsNa8_H1w@mail.gmail.com>
From: mike amundsen <mamund@yahoo.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] media type for partial JSON updates?
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, 29 Dec 2011 16:58:41 -0000

On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 11:46, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> On 2011-12-29 17:07, mike amundsen wrote:
>>
>> Julian:
>>
>>
>> I think there is already an XML format for PATCH, right? (can't seem
>> to find it right now) It might not bee too much work to spin up a
>> parallel media type definition using the JSON format.
>
>
> Oh, there is already a proposal for a JSON-based patch format as well.

understood.

>
>
>> That document might be proper place to describe a typical PATCH media
>> type as (improvising here) "a format designed to *modify* an existing
>> entity rather than replace all or part of an existing entity and/or
>> introduce the notion of "partial updates" through the description of
>> the PATCH method.
>
>
> Why would you want to describe this as part of a spec for an XML format?

i do not, my message here was too vague.

1) i assumed you were proposing a new document that discussed PATCH
for partial updates.
2) i meant to say that the document you propose "might be the proper
place.... etc."
3) i assumed your text "define a matching media type ... It might be a
light-weight alternative to what
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pbryan-json-patch-04> describes..."
meant you were proposing a NEW media type to register w/ the IANA and
i suggested the XML PATCH (RFC5621, i think) as a possible template
for designing a JSON variant that would be this NEW media type.

>
> Best regards, Julian