Re: [json] Re: JSON Patch Internet-Draft 04
- On Mon, 2011-12-05 at 17:56 +0000, alexandre_morgaut wrote:
> > The first draft of JSON Patch actually used JSON Path. Since JSONNo, this specification does not support mathematical, logical or string
> > 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
> > be very easy to express in a URI fragment identifier. JSON Schema
> > developed a simple syntax, which was very straightforward to
> > much simpler even if you only kept dot and bracket notation and
> > 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
> 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
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]