RE: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-07.txt> (JSON Pointer) to Proposed Standard

["Markus Lanthaler" <[e-mail]>]

On Monday, January 07, 2013 11:39 PM, Conal Tuohy wrote:

> On 07/01/13 13:23, Matthew Morley wrote:
>
> > For me the deficiency is not in the pointer, but patch
> > format being generated.
> >
> > One approach is to push that *one* test, structure conformity,
> >  into the pointer syntax. Another is via the type operation.
> >
> > If a vague patch is generated, vague results are to be expected.
>
> It seems to me, on the contrary, that the deficiency is in the
> pointer syntax, and I think it would be a mistake to try to work
> around that deficiency in JSON Patch. Because aren't there other
> things which one might do with JSON Pointer than use it with JSON
> Patch? There's been mention of having it registered as a URI
> fragment identifier syntax for JSON for example. JSON Pointers
> could then end up all over the place, outside of patches. IMHO
> JSON Pointer needs to be taken seriously as a technology in its
> own right.

I would like to second that. Since JSON Pointer and JSON Patch will be two
independent standards I expect (hope) that JSON Pointer will be used for
many other things than patching and that's exactly the reason why I raised
this in the first place.

I still believe that the current ambiguity might hinder many valuable use
cases in the future. I do understand that we are already quite late in the
process but since the fix is rather trivial I don't see a compelling reason
to not resolve this now.


Cheers,
Markus



--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler