Programming languages use "." to separate components. Unix file systems and URIs use "/". So is a JSON field name a fully qualified reference in a programming language, or a full path name in a file system? Is light a particle or a wave?
I prefer ".", but doesn't really matter to me. And I don't think it's likely we'll use "." or "/" in field names, so escaping isn't an issue. Sigh. I just implemented that. Rather than defining a symbolic constant for the separator, I sleazed out and hard-coded ".", thinking that no one would ever want to change that. Next time I'll learn! - Wendy Roome From: "Y. Richard Yang" <[email protected]> Date: Mon, October 14, 2013 00:19 To: Wendy Roome <[email protected]> Cc: IETF ALTO <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Consistent with JSON Patch/Pointer was [alto] New error format in draft 20 On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 9:20 PM, Y. Richard Yang <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Wendy, > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Wendy Roome <[email protected]> > wrote: >> Good point! I was relying on the fact that our field names are unique for >> now, but there's no guarantee it will stay that way. So yes, set "field" to >> the full path, and ban "." from field names. >> >> But the path should go all the way to the root dictionary. Eg, for a bad >> mode, >> >> "field": "meta.cost-type.cost-mode" >> "value": "foo" Suppose we want to be consistent with RFC 6901 and RFC 6902, then we may name "field" as "path" and use "/" instead of ".". Any comments? Richard
_______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
