Re: [apps-discuss] Confusing JSON Pointer

"Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Wed, 28 March 2012 06:40 UTC

Return-Path: <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
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 E4AE821E804B for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 23:40:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.033
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.033 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.243, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 13+y8SRDluWS for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 23:40:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from scintmta01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (scintmta01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp [133.2.253.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DDA521E8050 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 23:40:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from scmse01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp ([133.2.253.231]) by scintmta01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (secret/secret) with SMTP id q2S6e5Z6024137 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 15:40:05 +0900
Received: from (unknown [133.2.206.133]) by scmse01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp with smtp id 41c4_8551_da55b136_78a0_11e1_b401_001d096c566a; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 15:40:04 +0900
Received: from [IPv6:::1] ([133.2.210.1]:33148) by itmail.it.aoyama.ac.jp with [XMail 1.22 ESMTP Server] id <S15AFA36> for <apps-discuss@ietf.org> from <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 15:40:09 +0900
Message-ID: <4F72B241.60101@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 15:40:01 +0900
From: "\"Martin J. Dürst\"" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Organization: Aoyama Gakuin University
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100722 Eudora/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Paul C. Bryan" <pbryan@anode.ca>
References: <CAJO=ius8siusDXemCFQKy9=HOXs6L9eX108u7-OW3Rvu+L9qDw@mail.gmail.com> <4F7172FE.6060207@gmx.de> <CAJO=iuv2b1J8D=k5mTEYU3f564cYnXuiL=-83qKFm-kGAjSZOw@mail.gmail.com> <4F71CD46.5070603@gmx.de> <CAJO=iusKZo9DKynBL3vR11yL40t7X-DsndjXqQCRUUjMcxyE+w@mail.gmail.com> <1332898587.10875.5.camel@neutron>
In-Reply-To: <1332898587.10875.5.camel@neutron>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Confusing JSON Pointer
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: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 06:40:18 -0000

Hello Paul, others,

On 2012/03/28 10:36, Paul C. Bryan wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-03-28 at 08:47 +0900, 지송원 James Songwon Chi wrote:
>
>> 2012년 3월 27일 오후 11:23, Julian Reschke<julian.reschke@gmx.de>님의 말:
>>> On 2012-03-27 15:49, 지송원 James Songwon Chi wrote:
>>>> 2012년 3월 27일 오후 4:57, Julian Reschke<julian.reschke@gmx.de>님의 말:
>>>>> On 2012-03-27 07:22, 지송원 James Songwon Chi wrote:

>>>>>> And if my interpretation is wrong, to prevent the similar question,
>>>>>> there should be some examples for this kind.
>>>>>> ...

Can we please make sure that we add some example(s) and clarify the spec 
so that such questions can be avoided in the future?

> The intent of the draft is to establish rules for encoding in a JSON
> string or in a URI. Of course, I agree that a URI can in turn be
> expressed in a JSON string, but in this case, URI encoding applies; you
> do not mix-and-match encodings.
>
>
>> By the way, do we really *need another escape* even there are two
>> encodings already?
>
>
> I'm not sure what you mean here. If you encode as URI, presumably all
> valid URI characters are representable without any further escaping in a
> JSON string.

Can we please make sure this is as clear as possible in the spec?

Regards,   Martin.