IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-00 feedback

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Thu, 05 January 2012 10:08 UTC

Return-Path: <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDA7621F86BD for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Jan 2012 02:08:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.521
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.521 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.222, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4HQTha6XGH85 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Jan 2012 02:08:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 05A8821F8661 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Jan 2012 02:08:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 05 Jan 2012 10:08:41 -0000
Received: from p5DCC2522.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.178.36]) [93.204.37.34] by mail.gmx.net (mp028) with SMTP; 05 Jan 2012 11:08:41 +0100
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+KtR1zXCmK+Syo2MKoseMrJ5eTNpI4FX61354ifm RTvNPaM1h+3VlC
Message-ID: <4F0576A3.9030800@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2012 11:08:35 +0100
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "\"Martin J. Dürst\"" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
References: <4F044AEE.2080205@gmx.de> <4F050020.2000104@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
In-Reply-To: <4F050020.2000104@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-00 feedback
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2012 10:08:47 -0000

On 2012-01-05 02:42, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote:
> ...
>> Appendix A:
>>
>> The semantics of fragment identifiers depends on the media type. You
>> need to be clear whether you're trying to define the fragid semantics
>> for application/json (which as far as I recall doesn't define any), or
>> something else.
>
> Yes. I'd propose that you just say you do, and then add a line at the
> top saying that your RFC-to-be will update the JSON definition. You'll
> also have to note that in an IANA section.
 > ...

I have to say that I'm getting nervous about this.

1) When this WG adopted this as a work item, was it clear that JSON 
pointer isn't "a pointer syntax" but "*the* pointer syntax"?

2) Also, declaring this the one and only fragment identifier syntax for 
application/json means that we're closing the door for any future syntax 
that offers more expressiveness.

In XML, people tried to handle this problem with a whole framework 
(XPointer), which doesn't seem to work too well.

Maybe in this case the solution would be to reserve more delimiter 
characters that we'll likely need in the future (such as "[", "]", "(", 
")", double quotes, single quotes etc).

Best regards, Julian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email