RE: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-07.txt> (JSON Pointer) to Proposed Standard
"Markus Lanthaler" <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> Fri, 14 December 2012 17:17 UTC
Return-Path: <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6845221F8A08 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 09:17:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.961
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.961 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.188, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT=1.449]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BuESEYc7y37G for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 09:17:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.19]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40ABD21F8A00 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 09:17:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([10.1.76.29]) by mrigmx.server.lan (mrigmx001) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MGDg9-1Tx2sG1B0J-00FAk8 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 18:17:39 +0100
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 14 Dec 2012 17:17:38 -0000
Received: from unknown (EHLO Vostro3500) [84.115.182.43] by mail.gmx.net (mp029) with SMTP; 14 Dec 2012 18:17:38 +0100
X-Authenticated: #419883
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18huEAEOS4hnEAFoDwA6TEOXZ6xFoeaWHs/Aeszkt ZVVNyMy3vXuRwr
From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
To: 'James M Snell' <jasnell@gmail.com>
References: <20121211150057.28223.93310.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <50cb04b9.86df440a.72fe.1e20SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <CABP7RbeNsZ_rBWRjou=VG+hBhUKaOz+y1a0sSChwWiHte9znnQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABP7RbeNsZ_rBWRjou=VG+hBhUKaOz+y1a0sSChwWiHte9znnQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: RE: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-07.txt> (JSON Pointer) to Proposed Standard
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 18:17:33 +0100
Message-ID: <01f901cdda1e$e9287830$bb796890$@lanthaler>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_01FA_01CDDA27.4AECE030"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Ac3aGcp/PEXrnxKCQ+em/G5vi3KWIgABPGqA
Content-Language: de
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 09:26:48 -0800
Cc: 'IETF Discussion' <ietf@ietf.org>, 'IETF Apps Discuss' <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 17:17:41 -0000
Hmm.. I think that’s quite problematic. Especially considering how JSON Pointer is used in JSON Patch. -- Markus Lanthaler @markuslanthaler From: James M Snell [mailto:jasnell@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 14, 2012 5:41 PM To: Markus Lanthaler Cc: IETF Discussion; IETF Apps Discuss Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-07.txt> (JSON Pointer) to Proposed Standard JSON Pointer does not distinguish between objects and arrays. That is not determined until the pointer is applied to an actual object instance... the pointer "/1" is valid against {"1":"a"} or ["a","b"] On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 2:51 AM, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> wrote: I've asked that before but didn't get an answer. So let me ask again (even though I'm quite sure it has already been asked by somebody else). How does JSON Pointer distinguish between objects and arrays? E.g. consider the following JSON document: { "foo": "bar", "1": "baz" } As I read the draft, the JSON Pointer "/1" would evaluate to "baz" even though that's probably not what the author intended. Is there a way to avoid that? Thanks, Markus -- Markus Lanthaler @markuslanthaler > -----Original Message----- > From: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:apps-discuss- > bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of The IESG > Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 4:01 PM > To: IETF-Announce > Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org > Subject: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer- > 07.txt> (JSON Pointer) to Proposed Standard > > > The IESG has received a request from the Applications Area Working > Group > WG (appsawg) to consider the following document: > - 'JSON Pointer' > <draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-07.txt> as Proposed Standard > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits > final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the > ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-12-25. Exceptionally, comments may > be > sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the > beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. > > Abstract > > > JSON Pointer defines a string syntax for identifying a specific > value > within a JSON document. > > > > > The file can be obtained via > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer/ > > IESG discussion can be tracked via > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer/ballot/ > > > No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. > > > _______________________________________________ > apps-discuss mailing list > apps-discuss@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss _______________________________________________ apps-discuss mailing list apps-discuss@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
- RE: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg… Markus Lanthaler
- RE: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg… Markus Lanthaler
- Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg… James M Snell
- Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg… James M Snell
- Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg… Robert Sayre
- RE: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg… Markus Lanthaler
- Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg… James M Snell
- Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg… James M Snell
- Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg… James M Snell
- Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg… Robert Sayre
- Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg… Mark Nottingham
- Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg… Robert Sayre
- Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg… Robert Sayre
- Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg… James M Snell
- Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg… Matthew Morley
- Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg… Robert Sayre
- Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg… James M Snell
- Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg… James M Snell
- RE: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg… Manger, James H
- Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg… Matthew Morley
- Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg… Robert Sayre
- Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg… James M Snell
- Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg… Mark Nottingham
- Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg… Robert Sayre
- Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg… Mark Nottingham
- Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg… Robert Sayre
- Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg… James M Snell
- Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg… Robert Sayre
- Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg… James M Snell
- Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg… Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg… Robert Sayre
- Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg… Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg… Robert Sayre
- Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg… Robert Sayre
- Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg… Matthew Morley
- Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg… Paul C. Bryan
- Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg… James M Snell
- Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg… Robert Sayre
- Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg… Robert Sayre
- Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg… Paul C. Bryan
- RE: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg… Markus Lanthaler
- Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg… Robert Sayre
- Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg… James M Snell
- Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg… Conal Tuohy
- Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg… Matthew Morley
- Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg… Jared Rosoff
- Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg… Jared Rosoff
- Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg… James M Snell
- Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg… Jared Rosoff
- Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg… James M Snell
- Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg… Robert Sayre
- Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg… Hector Santos
- Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg… Robert Sayre