I disagree that it needs to be in the spec. The spec already says "This document is based on Stefan Gössner's popular JSONPath proposal" and I think that's sufficient. It doesn't need to acknowledge every departure.
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 09:58:26 AM GMT+12, Joe Clarke (jclarke) <jclarke=40cisco.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Worth mentioning those two in the document IMHO.
Joe
From: OPS-DIR <ops-dir-bounces@xxxxxxxx> on behalf of Greg Dennis <gregsdennis=40yahoo.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 17:50
To: Glyn Normington <glyn.normington.work@xxxxxxxxx>, Joe Clarke (jclarke) <jclarke=40cisco.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: ops-dir@xxxxxxxx <ops-dir@xxxxxxxx>, draft-ietf-jsonpath-base.all@xxxxxxxx <draft-ietf-jsonpath-base.all@xxxxxxxx>, jsonpath@xxxxxxxx <jsonpath@xxxxxxxx>, last-call@xxxxxxxx <last-call@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [OPS-DIR] [Jsonpath] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-jsonpath-base-16
JMC: I’m sure they will (as has happened to tools like jq). I thought that those that implemented Gössner’s JSONPath today might like a
quick guide to aid them in porting their implementation to the standard.
I think the only things that are in Goesser's post that didn't make it into the spec are
.length and the index _expression_ construct [(@.length-1)].
·
.length didn't make it because we opted for functions to distinguish
from an actual "length" property
·
The index _expression_ didn't make it because it was decided that the use cases didn't warrant specifying it. (I argued to include it.)
Secondly, most don't implement just Goessner's JSONPath. Most implement various extensions. It's transitioning from those extensions mainly that they'll need to document.
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
