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

R S <sayrer@gmail.com> Tue, 24 September 2013 03:57 UTC

Return-Path: <sayrer@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97AE021F9E5B for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Sep 2013 20:57:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cKdkN2Pl64PA for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Sep 2013 20:57:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qc0-x234.google.com (mail-qc0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08D7421F9E6C for <json@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Sep 2013 20:57:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qc0-f180.google.com with SMTP id p19so2693310qcv.25 for <json@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Sep 2013 20:57:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=id21Zh3WtNNx/LAuBh8h/VjkHDeE8ge3PizR6brijkY=; b=U9KYmvGX995hKxXS+C5amBSY5ZrhpDHRnfpHxTFJ9vyD0Y5bVfLw0FXYj2FB41l/0D 1rSf/SuNCrhFjh3+0HFTTDiZvglTK3JlUExnmi5faL/OnBemeqbof/aWnLZygmE0egUv ye5PcnG0eFSq3A+tOl2xEmAvkP+Zb8EOlJ/4RkpnQYLCa3MKnGfWZx3YmRscpNOV67Zx D9MNp47jMhP4yrkfb+yv8GgZhEeDd6tsip4TmrntNGuKg8MNcX6L6kZSgWFu4YA3mRMH xg6JJwEnQAZnlRWf8usaotp9R+ZUu5Z5dpavo47ZoLXpTwCSIlQH+PQDz/42LcCay5yJ mQBA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.224.114.81 with SMTP id d17mr26476658qaq.18.1379995044737; Mon, 23 Sep 2013 20:57:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.140.86.147 with HTTP; Mon, 23 Sep 2013 20:57:24 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1379994578.19960.6.camel@dilithium>
References: <BF7E36B9C495A6468E8EC573603ED9411EF1329E@xmb-aln-x11.cisco.com> <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E115310592C5@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com> <3AC0F7BB-3FED-4614-B73B-5A693968285B@vpnc.org> <CAChr6Sx2Z4wx87GmtqVvsdNXaukYUGc9YT3Ps2WaBJnDnniLAA@mail.gmail.com> <1379993594.19960.2.camel@dilithium> <CAChr6SwftJfdf7u6Ekjf7o67WwrmMYEz=9AjXS=zyi=CuYQ8Kw@mail.gmail.com> <1379994149.19960.4.camel@dilithium> <CAChr6SxRUU2W1mUMzm4gNDKPpiYMTu1OvwwWG6aksfGgPg=fjg@mail.gmail.com> <1379994578.19960.6.camel@dilithium>
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 20:57:24 -0700
Message-ID: <CAChr6Sz0AV-3ZyVVXN_3SdbojeG5gEqZFgr2LUhFrOHSC9F06w@mail.gmail.com>
From: R S <sayrer@gmail.com>
To: "Paul C. Bryan" <pbryan@anode.ca>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7bea3a346efb4f04e719223d"
Cc: "Manger, James H" <james.h.manger@team.telstra.com>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] json-pointer as URI fragment syntax for application/json
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" <json.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/json>, <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/json>
List-Post: <mailto:json@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json>, <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 03:57:31 -0000

On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 8:49 PM, Paul C. Bryan <pbryan@anode.ca> 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 <pbryan@anode.ca> 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" <pbryan@anode.ca> 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" <
> james.h.manger@team.telstra.com> 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
> json@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> json mailing listjson@ietf.orghttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>