Re: [Jsonpath] June interim meeting

[Greg Dennis <[e-mail]>]

 #97 has been rebased.
Carsten, would you explain your understanding of the difference between string in JSON and strings in JSONPath, please?  Isn't JSONPath built on JSON?  Wouldn't that necessitate the same definition?  You've been rather aggressive with comments on strings, but you haven't offered any alternatives or reasons for your objections.  You've simply stated that what Stefan and I have written is wrong.  (I've tried to follow from your "slides," but they seem more like fragmented notes: reminders of talking points for you.  There's not really much reasoning to follow in there.)
My primary objection to the use of "literals" (and why I used "values" instead) is that we discussed and agreed using "values" in the previous meeting.  We never discussed the word "literal."  If this is the direction you'd like us to go, that's fine, but we need to discuss it first.  Instead, you've both proposed it and urgently pushed for it on both of the major change sets.

    On Monday, June 14, 2021, 09:53:11 PM GMT+12, Glyn Normington <[e-mail]> wrote:  
 
 > I would prefer if we could merge the ready-to-merge PRs (#94, #101) and get the other ones rebased on those.
> With enough time before tomorrow’s meeting that we can still prepare slides.

I have merged PRs 94 & 101 and asked the raisers of the two other
non-draft PRs to rebase.

On Mon, 14 Jun 2021 at 06:32, Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> On 14. Jun 2021, at 06:07, Tim Bray <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
> I don't know who's coming but I just spent a certain amount of time looking at our PR list and, while I have opinions about the details, I think it's difficult to follow the rapid evolution of these discussions over the last week or so.
>
>
> I would prefer if we could merge the ready-to-merge PRs (#94, #101) and get the other ones rebased on those.
> With enough time before tomorrow’s meeting that we can still prepare slides.
>
> Can the document authors please get the merging done quickly, so the submitters can rebase their PRs?
> This is not the time to be shy — I know there are authors on the document that are invisible, but this will have to be done by the ones who have been doing the work.
>
> (I apologise for forking #99 off #98; I hope I have explained why the tooling made this necessary.
> I don’t know how “alive” #75 is; the actual PR would need rebasing after the selector work has progressed.)
>
> So there really only is
>
> — #97, which after rebasing is a single remaining change.  That needs discussion, because it is indicative of a fundamental problem we haven’t addressed yet.
> — #99 (with most of the discussion in the thread on #98), which desperately needs to be split up into smaller PRs building on top of each other.
>
> This is to ask Greg/Glyn/Carsten/Stefan for their help in walking us through which of these selector--definition and terminology issues are considered "open" and worthy of WG time at the meeting.
>
>
> I can certainly make a slide or two on the remaining significant terminology issue.
> (That doesn’t mean terminology is otherwise done, it’s just good enough that work can continue on technical content.)
>
> Should someone want to post a summary/overview note before the meeting that would also be useful.
>
>
> Given the short time remaining, I’d prefer to do that in the form of slideware.
>
> Grüße, Carsten
>
> --
> Jsonpath mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jsonpath

-- 
Jsonpath mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jsonpath