Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

1791Re: JSON Patch Internet-Draft 04

Expand Messages
  • alexandre_morgaut
    Dec 5, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      > The first draft of JSON Patch actually used JSON Path. Since JSON Path
      > was not standardized, I had to choose to try to standardize JSON Path or
      > do something else. For other reasons, we also needed a syntax that would
      > be very easy to express in a URI fragment identifier. JSON Schema
      > developed a simple syntax, which was very straightforward to implementâ€"
      > much simpler even if you only kept dot and bracket notation and dumped
      > the rest. This was spun-off into the JSON Pointer specification.

      I think JSONPath is kind of a de facto standard. It was chosen by ebay to create its new SQL variant ( http://ql.io/examples )

      I like JSON Schema but I'm not fan of this JSON Pointer draft. The JSON Path or Pointer reference something inside the representation (HTTP Body). So yes, it could be inserted with benefits in the fragment part of the URL as it is proposed for plain text (RFC 5147) or W3C Media fragments.

      Fragments are always URL encoded either if they look as a URL like path or a JavaScript like path... I agree it'd be great to have the author propose a draft to the IETF

      > Not sure what you mean by cross-typed operations. Can you replace a
      > number with a string or object? Yes.

      I meant something like a "add" of a number to a string

    • Show all 5 messages in this topic