Re: [Jsonpath] JSONPath draft charter

[Tim Bray <[e-mail]>]

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
>
>