IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Jsonpath] JSONPath draft charter

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Wed, 02 September 2020 15:45 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: jsonpath@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: jsonpath@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92FE53A0B38 for <jsonpath@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 08:45:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 H8Bf3M3ifi4p for <jsonpath@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 08:45:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C15403A0AE7 for <jsonpath@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 08:45:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.217.102] (p5089ae91.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.137.174.145]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4BhSvL1zgWzysB; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 17:45:34 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAHBU6itre+NLgxjdbK3WAdj9VvCrvbj0CqXbvMr1ZaeuSpdncw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2020 17:45:33 +0200
Cc: "jsonpath@ietf.org" <jsonpath@ietf.org>, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 620754333.603935-f1322d56c58bddb5fe410951c72da616
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B7AE60B2-1904-4F9B-AE4F-FD1BF034E884@tzi.org>
References: <mailman.38.1597172408.10748.jsonpath@ietf.org> <CA+mwktKSMn0e3Xh5K3z-wxeC_icx3dnepWvxKu74miGqLb_wxA@mail.gmail.com> <AEE0C02D-DF63-4CEF-AC78-08180BC0B0F2@tzi.org> <CAHBU6ivxaeKRm8+5_DiP=qtpiWXEffD374n6dxx4bgJTt1nCbw@mail.gmail.com> <22C87C6B-F7FB-4074-8EEF-118AA28AB61B@tzi.org> <3AC3C075-2CA3-4DDC-BEE8-C3C4B179A61B@vmware.com> <CAHBU6ivA79KFJa4DfO4BEdGJ1K9pWP+cgHC4tegNjW90favxAw@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwb4WtQEKcnPmPYhkXp4_0rYjJKC52SEVtuxiG3MCVtXjQ@mail.gmail.com> <2498CFE1-D301-4238-AD9E-926817C4D7E5@tzi.org> <F868B402-52BE-4E79-84D8-13C000F0942F@vmware.com> <B91DEC0E-FE52-48DE-88BD-DD7C2109DD5A@tzi.org> <193BACC1-9D5F-4987-BA4E-3AFF9632D995@vmware.com> <9ACF3893-A7F1-4DD3-910C-92362BA652A5@tzi.org> <99DAB3E2-4359-47B5-98C7-25D1BC2B7E55@vmware.com> <CAHBU6itre+NLgxjdbK3WAdj9VvCrvbj0CqXbvMr1ZaeuSpdncw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/jsonpath/diLO3iXQCYTI6ScE-LVTsNraFgg>
Subject: Re: [Jsonpath] JSONPath draft charter
X-BeenThere: jsonpath@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: A summary description of the list to be included in the table on this page <jsonpath.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/jsonpath>, <mailto:jsonpath-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/jsonpath/>
List-Post: <mailto:jsonpath@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:jsonpath-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jsonpath>, <mailto:jsonpath-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2020 15:45:39 -0000

On 2020-09-02, at 17:39, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> wrote:
> 
> We're maybe overthinking this. Yes, JSONPointer and JMESpath exist, but lots of people are using JSONPath, there's good software support but no spec, so it would be beneficial to write a spec. What's the alternative, everyone now using JSONPath rewrites their software because the alternative has a spec?

I think this is just a “we made our homework” type statement: We looked at these and know that they exist, but the proposed WG is something different.

Murray: Du you think that what we have is good enough to send it back to DISPATCH?

Grüße, Carsten

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email