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

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

On 2012-03-20 22:01, Paul C. Bryan wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 19:55 +0100, Julian Reschke wrote:
>
>> So is the intent to define the fragment identifier syntax for
>> application/json or not?
>
> It wasn't my intent originally, though your concerns have me think that
> perhaps we should consider it. It was to define a fragment identifier
> syntax, which other specifications (e.g. JSON Schema, JSON Reference)
> can reference.
>
>> If it is, we need to normatively update the JSON RFC, and need to make
>> sure there's really consensus on this.
>
> Question: Do you think it should?

I'm not sure.

>> If it is not, the way the Pointer spec currently is written is very
>> confusing.
>
> Any text suggestions to resolve this?

Section 6 should clarify that the fragment identifier syntax applies to 
Internet Media Types that explicitly choose it, and that 
application/json hasn't (yet).

The examples in the appendix should get an explanation that they apply 
to a JSON-shaped example media type that indeed has choosen the fragid 
syntax...

Best regards, Julian