IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] JSON Patch

"Paul C. Bryan" <paul.bryan@forgerock.com> Wed, 02 November 2011 17:23 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.bryan@forgerock.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 CDD951F0C9F for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Nov 2011 10:23:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 y1eAfOUotC1h for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Nov 2011 10:23:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eu1sys200aog119.obsmtp.com (eu1sys200aog119.obsmtp.com [207.126.144.147]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 289F31F0C76 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Nov 2011 10:22:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-f42.google.com ([209.85.213.42]) (using TLSv1) by eu1sys200aob119.postini.com ([207.126.147.11]) with SMTP; Wed, 02 Nov 2011 17:23:00 UTC
Received: by ywb26 with SMTP id 26so662175ywb.1 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 02 Nov 2011 10:22:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.151.92.17 with SMTP id u17mr6522263ybl.22.1320254567261; Wed, 02 Nov 2011 10:22:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.3] (S0106a021b762dbb3.vf.shawcable.net. [174.1.40.184]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id x3sm9009463anl.6.2011.11.02.10.22.45 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 02 Nov 2011 10:22:46 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <1320254564.2622.37.camel@neutron>
From: "Paul C. Bryan" <paul.bryan@forgerock.com>
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2011 10:22:44 -0700
In-Reply-To: <4EB14C2E.8040208@gmx.de>
References: <4EB1482E.1040600@adobe.com> <4EB14C2E.8040208@gmx.de>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=-9JYf1lj4zb15I+rBXMzH"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.0.3-2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] JSON Patch
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, 02 Nov 2011 17:23:01 -0000

Thanks everyone for the feedback so far. Some replies:

On Wed, 2011-11-02 at 13:39 +0000, Michael Dürig wrote: 

> What is missing (wrt. to [2]) is a reorder operation.


The ability to move items in an array has come up and seems
straightforward. A need (and semantics) of moving a value between two
arbitrary locations in a JSON document is not well understood. 

On Wed, 2011-11-02 at 14:57 +0100, Julian Reschke wrote:

> As an XML person, seeing an XPath-like syntax make me happy. But 
> wouldn't be "dot" notation be much simpler, given where JSO comes
> from?


A few of reasons we went with slashes:

1. Less confusing where array elements are involved.
2. Slashes are less likely to appear in object member names, hence less
percent-encoding.
3. Pointers are intended to be specified in URI fragment identifiers,
and would appear to some (unsophisticated humans or machines) like a
filename extension.  

Paul

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email