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

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

On 2012-03-09 22:22, [e-mail] wrote:
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Applications Area Working Group Working Group of the IETF.
> ...

I'd like to repeat my concern I posted on the -00 version:

> On 2012-01-05 02:42, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote:
>
>     ...
>
>         Appendix A:
>
>         The semantics of fragment identifiers depends on the media type. You
>         need to be clear whether you're trying to define the fragid semantics
>         for application/json (which as far as I recall doesn't define any), or
>         something else.
>
>     Yes. I'd propose that you just say you do, and then add a line at the
>     top saying that your RFC-to-be will update the JSON definition. You'll
>     also have to note that in an IANA section.
>
>> ...
>
> I have to say that I'm getting nervous about this.
>
>
> 1) When this WG adopted this as a work item, was it clear that JSON pointer isn't "a pointer syntax" but "*the* pointer syntax"?
>
> 2) Also, declaring this the one and only fragment identifier syntax for application/json means that we're closing the door for any future syntax that offers more expressiveness.
>
> In XML, people tried to handle this problem with a whole framework (XPointer), which doesn't seem to work too well.
>
> Maybe in this case the solution would be to reserve more delimiter characters that we'll likely need in the future (such as "[", "]", "(", ")", double quotes, single quotes etc).
>
> Best regards, Julian

(see 
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg04035.html>)

Best regards, Julian