To play devil’s advocate: Is this format really necessary? From the draft:
> The HTTP PATCH [RFC5789] specification extends HTTP with a new method > to perform partial modifications to resources. A JSON-based patch > document type is required to modify JSON documents using this method. That’s not strictly true. A generic delta format such as xdelta3 or zdelta can be used to patch any type of resource at all (and frequently is, in apps like software updaters.) I can see that an advantage of JSON Patch is that, since it describes structural changes rather than byte-level changes, it works even if the physical representation of the JSON changes (i.e. modifications to whitespace or Unicode character encoding.) I’m just unsure whether that’s a significant enough advantage to outweigh the drawbacks, including: - Much more verbose than xdelta3 or zdelta - More CPU-expensive to patch - Requires new software to generate and apply patches, rather than using existing delta libraries - Has no error checking, so version mismatches could result in uncaught document corruption —Jens
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
