Re: [Json] [apps-discuss] merge-patch in APPSA and i-json in JSON

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Thu, 10 July 2014 18:53 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B1791B296C; Thu, 10 Jul 2014 11:53:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.108
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.108 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FRT_ADOBE2=2.455, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R0ATNMotGgcx; Thu, 10 Jul 2014 11:53:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 55B921A0352; Thu, 10 Jul 2014 11:53:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.20.30.90] (50-1-51-60.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.51.60]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.8/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s6AIrEbu061626 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 10 Jul 2014 11:53:16 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: hoffman.proper.com: Host 50-1-51-60.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.51.60] claimed to be [10.20.30.90]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <4ee005b6cf4043b6b5cbe8493e82f14f@BL2PR02MB307.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 11:53:14 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <4554206C-0046-4AF2-A893-55949EA9DCF5@vpnc.org>
References: <13c1732c5d504e84b80cd82e5e8f05ab@BL2PR02MB307.namprd02.prod.outlook.com> <DE7ECD34-F035-46CC-B0B0-571039A86F3F@vpnc.org> <20140708190635.GD6016@mercury.ccil.org> <4CB92BF6-A5A0-4598-A25F-C3F51E1DFFD5@tzi.org> <7E9AAC20-63CC-48EC-81EE-3F53CB3DEF83@vpnc.org> <4e1c044bf224420f94d1ebfb584f40ff@BL2PR02MB307.namprd02.prod.outlook.com> <7B8DAF84-E799-46A5-BC55-5BF34000A548@vpnc.org> <4ee005b6cf4043b6b5cbe8493e82f14f@BL2PR02MB307.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/TxqDKOpVmkuj83I8N37vIIWhpss
Cc: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] [apps-discuss] merge-patch in APPSA and i-json in JSON
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 18:53:19 -0000

On Jul 10, 2014, at 10:47 AM, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com> wrote:

>> RFC 7159. Might you instead suggest better wording for what you think
>> we should say about what the MergePatch operation works on?
> 
> Here's an attempt:
> ===
>  The MergePatch operation is defined to operate at an object level,
> not a textual level. There is no expectation that the MergePatch operation 
> will preserve  textual representation-level features such as white space, 
> member ordering, number precision beyond what is available in the
> target's implementation, and so forth. 
> 
> In addition, even if the target implementation allows multiple name/value pairs
> with the same name, the result of the patch operation on such
> objects is not defined.
> ===

The first sentence uses "object" incorrectly because JSON uses that term for something else. It could bee better worded as "The MergePatch operation is defined to operate at the level of data items, not at the level of data representation." 

> You could instead say that patch changes one of the values, all of
> the values, or consolidates them, nailing it down in the spirit of
> interoperability.

Nope, still not going there. The wording in RFC 7159 is still relevant here.

> I also think it would be advisable to disallow duplicate names
> in application/merge-patch+json, but that requiring the other
> features of I-json is unnecessary.

There is no need to re-argue what RFC 7159 says about this.

--Paul Hoffman