On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 3:53 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.resc...@gmx.de> wrote: > On 2012-04-05 15:41, Stefan Guggisberg wrote: >> >> ... >> >>> The question here is what needs to interop with that. >>> >>> If this format is used purely inside Oak, we don't have to deal with it. >>> >>> If this is positioned as a generic patch format for JSON, we do have to. >>> >>> It would be good to finally decide on where we want to go with this >>> format. >> >> >> agreed. while i like the idea of JSOP diff becoming a generic patch format >> for JSON i don't think that it's worth the extra headaches. on second >> thought >> i am now convinced that we should not support JSON Pointer (i.e. the >> escaping of forward slashes). >> >> i imagine such paths could/will be used in URLs. paths like >> "/foo/bar/yes^/no" would >> certainly cause problems. >> >> WDYT? >> ... > > > Well. > > If "/" is allowed in object names (in a role other than a path separator), > we need to be able to escape them. > > If we don't need them, there's nothing to worry about in practice, as the > escaping will never happen for us...
/me confused ;) i agree that in our current use of this format within oak it won't be a problem since "/" cannot occur in a name. however, you said that if JSOP diff (or whatever it's going to be callled) is positioned as a generic patch format for JSON, we do have to deal with ^/ in paths/names, i.e. JSOP protocol implementations need to be able to handle it. are you arguing for positioning JSOP diff as a generic patch format for JSON or against? cheers stefan > > Best regards, Julian
