Re: [dispatch] [Jsonpath] draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.txt

["Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, Sep 13, 2020 at 5:20 PM Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Two nits in the charter text:
>
> 1) I don't think it's necessary to compare this effort to JSONPointer;
> they do different things (querying a document vs. referring to a particular
> part of a document), just as XPath and XPointer do different things. Each
> has a place, it's not a matter of compatibility or supplanting JSONPath.
> So, 'Other, incompatible approaches exist... but have not succeeded in
> supplanting JSONPath' should be removed.
>

I suggested including something like this to head off questions from people
who might wonder why we're standardizing another JSON referencing method
when JSON Pointer wasn't that long ago.  Perhaps:

"This work is similar in concept to JSON Pointer (RFC xxxx) but documents a
mechanism that has broader support yet is in need of formal
standardization."

?

2) If this charter is predicated on adopting a specific draft, it should be
> listed (e.g., as we did in <
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-quic/01/>).
>

I don't think there is such a draft yet, just the external source
material.  We could say that the intent is to generate a draft from the
text found there.

-MSK