IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] #10: json-pointer fragment identifiers

"Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Tue, 03 July 2012 10:36 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 A08A621F8808 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 03:36:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -99.532
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.532 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.258, 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 FBdQ4r6UWW1n for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 03:36:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from scintmta02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (scintmta02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp [133.2.253.34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 597C521F8807 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 03:36:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from scmse02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp ([133.2.253.231]) by scintmta02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (secret/secret) with SMTP id q63AaUSu029336 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 19:36:30 +0900
Received: from (unknown [133.2.206.133]) by scmse02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp with smtp id 19ac_1d90_f35a3af2_c4fa_11e1_a450_001d096c5782; Tue, 03 Jul 2012 19:36:29 +0900
Received: from [IPv6:::1] ([133.2.210.1]:34271) by itmail.it.aoyama.ac.jp with [XMail 1.22 ESMTP Server] id <S15DB9A2> for <apps-discuss@ietf.org> from <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 19:36:34 +0900
Message-ID: <4FF2CB2A.5090004@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2012 19:36:26 +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: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
References: <2818721F-C276-42D6-9BE5-193A13521FF4@mnot.net> <4FF2A298.5030601@gmx.de> <B3ABF534-3C2F-4E3F-A41C-08FDE0EF3181@mnot.net> <4FF2A847.7090108@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <4FF2A847.7090108@gmx.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] #10: json-pointer fragment identifiers
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, 03 Jul 2012 10:36:34 -0000

On 2012/07/03 17:07, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2012-07-03 09:55, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> One other option -- we can decouple the decision and add json-pointer
>> as a fragid syntax for application/json later.

> Of course. My main concern is about doing it as a "side effect" instead
> of clearly updating RFC 4627.

Of course the draft would say "updates RFC 4627". Or is that not what 
you mean?

If the escaping syntax is ugly, but we tried very hard and didn't find 
anything better, then the chance that somebody else will find something 
better is low.

And "waiting for later" often means "waiting for never".

So I think we should just go ahead and define it.

Regards,   Martin.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email