On Monday, January 07, 2013 11:39 PM, Conal Tuohy wrote:
On 07/01/13 13:23, Matthew Morley wrote:
For me the deficiency is not in the pointer, but patch
format being generated.
One approach is to push that *one* test, structure conformity,
into the pointer syntax. Another is via the type operation.
If a vague patch is generated, vague results are to be expected.
It seems to me, on the contrary, that the deficiency is in the
pointer syntax, and I think it would be a mistake to try to work
around that deficiency in JSON Patch. Because aren't there other
things which one might do with JSON Pointer than use it with JSON
Patch? There's been mention of having it registered as a URI
fragment identifier syntax for JSON for example. JSON Pointers
could then end up all over the place, outside of patches. IMHO
JSON Pointer needs to be taken seriously as a technology in its
own right.
I would like to second that. Since JSON Pointer and JSON Patch will be two
independent standards I expect (hope) that JSON Pointer will be used for
many other things than patching and that's exactly the reason why I raised
this in the first place.
I still believe that the current ambiguity might hinder many valuable use
cases in the future. I do understand that we are already quite late in the
process but since the fix is rather trivial I don't see a compelling reason
to not resolve this now.
Cheers,
Markus
--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler