Re: [Jsonpath] [dispatch] draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.txt

[Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]>]

> On 15 Sep 2020, at 4:07 am, Murray S. Kucherawy <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Sep 13, 2020 at 5:20 PM Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Two nits in the charter text:
> 
> 1) I don't think it's necessary to compare this effort to JSONPointer; they do different things (querying a document vs. referring to a particular part of a document), just as XPath and XPointer do different things. Each has a place, it's not a matter of compatibility or supplanting JSONPath. So, 'Other, incompatible approaches exist... but have not succeeded in supplanting JSONPath' should be removed.
> 
> I suggested including something like this to head off questions from people who might wonder why we're standardizing another JSON referencing method when JSON Pointer wasn't that long ago.  Perhaps:
> 
> "This work is similar in concept to JSON Pointer (RFC xxxx) but documents a mechanism that has broader support yet is in need of formal standardization."
> 
> ?

No - it's not similar in concept, they're separate things. If you really wanted to mention JSON Pointer, you could say something like "Note that while JSON Pointer (RFC xxxx) is already standardised, it is designed to provide a reference to a single, specific part of a JSON document, whereas JSONPath provides the ability to query a document and potentially return multiple values."


> 2) If this charter is predicated on adopting a specific draft, it should be listed (e.g., as we did in <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-quic/01/>).
> 
> I don't think there is such a draft yet, just the external source material.  We could say that the intent is to generate a draft from the text found there.

I see two:
* https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath/
* https://jsonpath-standard.github.io/internet-draft/

Cheers,

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/