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

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Tue, 20 March 2012 16:42 UTC

Return-Path: <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
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 86D1621F8712 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 09:42:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.37
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.37 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.771, 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 7UGBFV6aRTWR for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 09:42:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 94F3321F8709 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 09:42:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 20 Mar 2012 16:42:39 -0000
Received: from mail.greenbytes.de (EHLO [192.168.1.140]) [217.91.35.233] by mail.gmx.net (mp028) with SMTP; 20 Mar 2012 17:42:39 +0100
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/fmPgXqlTf1H60aY+E/TcrGfNrIhkVNGw9kbntpP LAZE/pLOBessvM
Message-ID: <4F68B37E.9060608@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 17:42:38 +0100
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Paul C. Bryan" <pbryan@anode.ca>
References: <20120309212231.16366.52439.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4F689626.9070500@gmx.de> <1332261146.2171.7.camel@neutron>
In-Reply-To: <1332261146.2171.7.camel@neutron>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Cc: 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: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 16:42:42 -0000

On 2012-03-20 17:32, Paul C. Bryan wrote:
> I happen to think JSON Pointer should be the pointer syntax for fragment
> identifiers used by JSON Patch, not application/json per se. I don't
> currently see why one would need to amend the JSON specification to
> support this; any JSON Patch implementation should be fully capable of
> resolving fragment identifiers itself.
> ...

+1 on that, but in that case Section 6 and the examples in appendix A 
(using pointers in fragment identifiers) should be removed.

We can't say that we aren't defining the fragment syntax for 
application/json, but then have examples doing the opposite.

Best regards, Julian