Re: [Json] json-pointer as URI fragment syntax for application/json

["Paul C. Bryan" <[e-mail]>]

The Application Area Working group raised and addressed the question of
ambiguity during review of the Internet-Drafts. It concluded, by
consensus, that it was not a substantive issue, despite your
protestations.

On Mon, 2013-09-23 at 20:57 -0700, R S wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 8:49 PM, Paul C. Bryan <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> 
>         Kris Zyp was one of the two leads in the JSON Schema working
>         group, and whose contributions are attributable. He is
>         co-author of RFC 6901.
> 
> 
> Sure, sure.
> 
> 
> What about the other point?
> 
> 
> - Rob
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
>         
>         
>         On Mon, 2013-09-23 at 20:49 -0700, R S wrote: 
>         
>         > On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 8:42 PM, Paul C. Bryan
>         > <[e-mail]> wrote:
>         > 
>         >         It was designed by the JSON Schema working group. 
>         > 
>         > 
>         > 
>         > 
>         > 
>         > Oh, I see. That credit doesn't appear in RFC 6901.
>         > 
>         > 
>         > Still seems buggy as a general-purpose fragment identifier,
>         > since it can't distinguish between arrays and objects.
>         > 
>         > 
>         > - Rob
>         > 
>         > 
>         >  
>         > 
>         >         
>         >         
>         >         On Mon, 2013-09-23 at 20:41 -0700, R S wrote:
>         >         
>         >         > Who designed it?
>         >         > 
>         >         > Anyway, it is buggy as a general purpose fragment
>         >         > identifier.
>         >         > 
>         >         > - Rob 
>         >         > 
>         >         > On Sep 23, 2013 8:34 PM, "Paul C. Bryan"
>         >         > <[e-mail]> wrote:
>         >         > 
>         >         >         JSON Pointer was designed for multiple
>         >         >         purposes, including as a fragment
>         >         >         identifier in URIs.
>         >         >         
>         >         >         On Mon, 2013-09-23 at 09:11 -0700, R S
>         >         >         wrote:
>         >         >         
>         >         >         > This is a bad idea. JSON pointer was
>         >         >         > designed for a narrow patch use case,
>         >         >         > and can't disambiguate objects and
>         >         >         > arrays.
>         >         >         > 
>         >         >         > The JSON RFC shouldn't list every RFC
>         >         >         > that uses JSON. 
>         >         >         > 
>         >         >         > - Rob
>         >         >         > 
>         >         >         > <no hat>
>         >         >         > 
>         >         >         > On Sep 20, 2013, at 10:00 PM, "Manger,
>         >         >         > James H"
>         >         >         > <[e-mail]> wrote:
>         >         >         > 
>         >         >         > > RFC 4627 doesn't define how URI
>         >         >         > fragments work for application/json
>         >         >         > content.
>         >         >         > >
>         >         >         > > It would be helpful for 4627bis to say
>         >         >         > that a fragment (that begins with a "/"
>         >         >         > or is empty) is a JSON Pointer [RFC
>         >         >         > 6901]. A JSON Pointer identifies a
>         >         >         > specific value in a JSON text.
>         >         >         > 
>         >         >         > Changing the IANA MIME registry entry
>         >         >         > can be done, but I propose that we don't
>         >         >         > do it as part of the -bis because it is
>         >         >         > not really a clarification. This update
>         >         >         > can be done with a separate draft that
>         >         >         > updates the registry, but I admit that
>         >         >         > people tend to just read the RFCs, not
>         >         >         > the registry and therefore this is
>         >         >         > likely to be missed.
>         >         >         > 
>         >         >         > How do others feel about making a change
>         >         >         > in the -bis that is "things that have
>         >         >         > happened since 4627" that don't change
>         >         >         > the JSON grammar?
>         >         >         > 
>         >         >         > --Paul Hoffman
>         >         >         > _______________________________________________
>         >         >         > json mailing list
>         >         >         > [e-mail]
>         >         >         > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>         >         >         > 
>         >         >         > 
>         >         >         > 
>         >         >         > _______________________________________________
>         >         >         > json mailing list
>         >         >         > [e-mail]
>         >         >         > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>         >         >         
>         >         >         
>         >         >         
>         >         
>         >         
>         >         
>         > 
>         > 
>         > 
>         
>         
>         
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> json mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json