On Monday, January 07, 2013 11:39 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 syntax. Another is via the type operation. > > > > If a vague patch is generated, vague results are to be expected. > > It seems to me, on the contrary, that the deficiency is in the > pointer syntax, and I think it would be a mistake to try to work > around that deficiency in JSON Patch. Because aren't there other > things which one might do with JSON Pointer than use it with JSON > Patch? There's been mention of having it registered as a URI > fragment identifier syntax for JSON for example. JSON Pointers > could then end up all over the place, outside of patches. IMHO > JSON Pointer needs to be taken seriously as a technology in its > own right. I would like to second that. Since JSON Pointer and JSON Patch will be two independent standards I expect (hope) that JSON Pointer will be used for many other things than patching and that's exactly the reason why I raised this in the first place. I still believe that the current ambiguity might hinder many valuable use cases in the future. I do understand that we are already quite late in the process but since the fix is rather trivial I don't see a compelling reason to not resolve this now. Cheers, Markus -- Markus Lanthaler @markuslanthaler