On 2011-12-14 16:11, Thomas Mueller wrote:
Hi,
It *is* a sub-delim, but the quoted text above is irrelevant.
I just wanted to show one example of a URI where the semicolon is used.
it behaves exactly the same as "." or
",", for example.
Yes, only that a dot is quite common in JCR paths. A comma might be
acceptable, but I personally prefer semicolon. Anyway, if we want to use
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pbryan-zyp-json-pointer-02 as the
specification for a path, then quite many characters would have to be
escaped unfortunately. I guess the escaping would only be required in the
getNodes(..) call, not in the JSOP / JSON Patch / returned JSON.
You could make it "?hash&index".
That's true. But ";hash;index" is easier in my view (you only need one
character: ";", which you need two characters when using the "?" and "&").
So essentially you want an extension mechanism on the identifier
notation.
Yes.
I don't think this is a good idea.
Too bad. Of course you are free to say you don't think it's a good idea,
but it doesn't help much if you have no alternative solution for the given
problem.
Well, the alternative is not to overload the pointers with additional
information.
In JSON Pointer, a pointer identifies a JSON member.
The JSON Pointer specification
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pbryan-zyp-json-pointer-02 actually
already refers to RFC 3986, that means the "/foo;hash" would be OK I guess
(syntactically). But semantically it wouldn't be clear that it refers to
the same entity as "/foo".
Actually it's totally clear that it *does* refer to a different entity.
Best regards, Julian
