On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 5:39 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 sy
On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 8:15 PM, Robert Sayre wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Robert Sayre wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Paul C. Bryan wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Common concurrent editing algorithms should, in my opinion, use
> techniques
> >> to ensure the state of the resource
I do not feel there is a gain from adjusting the syntax, in the role of
JSON Pointer as a stand alone specification. The addition of such a change
adds an implied checking of a list vs a collection, as part of pointer
resolution.
If you are using the pointer as a means to get a value, it makes lit
I am usually lurking and struggling to keep up with these posts. But, I
concur with James, this really is a non-issue in practice.
The JSON Pointer expresses a path down a JSON object to a specific context.
The Patch expresses a change within or to that context.
Everything about the both standards
