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

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

On 2012-03-20 19:44, Paul C. Bryan wrote:
> ...
> 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.
> ...

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

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

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

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

What needs to be clear is to what media types the fragment syntax 
applies. All JSON-shaped? application/json? Future json-types, on an 
opt-in basis?

>> 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?

Yes.

Best regards, Julian