On Wed, 2011-04-20 at 15:15 -0400, Paul Davis wrote: Thanks for the feedback.
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Paul C. Bryan <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I just posted an informational Internet-Draft regarding a JSON media > > type to support HTTP PATCH partial modifications—something I've desired > > in CouchDB for a while, since this thread: > > http://web.archiveorange.com/archive/v/pNInH33bynEnhjlOlX5f > > > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pbryan-json-patch-00 > > > > Any feedback would be appreciated. > > > > Paul > > > > Cool work. Though I would argue against relying on JSONPath in the > spec, because JSONPath has no spec itself. I did a fairly similar > thing to this but instead of using paths I added operations for moving > around the JSON object. There's code for it in a Python package [1] > that I'll try and remember to move to github later tonight. Yes, I went back and forth on the use of JSONPath. Eventually, I settled on using it because it does provide a well-defined format and the prospect of reinventing it put me off. I'm currently in the process of trying to get a stable subset of JSONPath published as an I-D as well. > Also, I would remove all wording about HTTP from the specification. > Just because CouchDB might use the HTTP PATCH verb to apply JSON diffs > doesn't mean the diff format should be aware that HTTP even exists. > That's be like saying that unified diff's are only valid when applied > over email or something. > > [1] http://pypi.python.org/pypi/jsontools/0.1 I only mean HTTP and HTTP PATCH to be as informative references—I would like there to be a patch document format for JSON that is used with HTTP PATCH. Maybe I can lighten—but not totally eliminate—my references to them? :-) Paul
