Re: [Jsonpath] JSONPath draft charter

[Tim Bray <[e-mail]>]

Um, where's the "Fire" button?

On Sat., Sep. 12, 2020, 8:40 p.m. Murray S. Kucherawy, <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Works for me too. Going back to DISPATCH with this is the next step,
> correct?
>
> If so, fire when ready.
>
> -MSK
>
> On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 1:17 PM Tim Bray <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Works for me.
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 1:08 PM Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2020-09-02, at 19:54, Tim Bray <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > I made https://github.com/jsonpath-wg/charter/pull/2 to say changes
>>> to JMESPath and JSON Pointer are not contemplated. I actually don't have
>>> much of an opinion as to whether this is an improvement, so I'm OK either
>>> way.
>>>
>>> I think the IESG usually wants much stronger language than “not
>>> contemplated” for the charter exclusions.  For me, that is already implicit
>>> in the statement of what it does do, so this language might even be a step
>>> backwards.
>>>
>>> I would simply say “These are out of scope for the WG” at the end of the
>>> penultimate paragraph, but that may not be entirely true either:
>>> We may want to describe the two-way mapping between JSON Pointer and
>>> JSONPath for a subset (or an important part of that subset) where that
>>> two-way mapping exists.
>>>
>>> So that would make it:
>>>
>>> > These approaches are out of scope for the WG, except that it may be
>>> > useful to describe the mapping between subsets of JSON Pointer and
>>> > JSONPath.
>>>
>>> (If that turns out to be a bad restriction, we can always ask for a
>>> recharter later, so there is no need for weaselwords.)
>>>
>>> Now https://github.com/jsonpath-wg/charter/pull/3
>>>
>>> Grüße, Carsten
>>>
>>>