search

ietf-wg-jsonpath / draft-ietf-jsonpath-base

Development of a JSONPath internet draft
https://ietf-wg-jsonpath.github.io/draft-ietf-jsonpath-base/
Other
59 stars 20 forks source link

We no longer expand "JSON" #225

Closed cabo closed 2 years ago

cabo commented 2 years ago
gregsdennis commented 2 years ago

Why is the expansion misleading?

glyn commented 2 years ago

Why is the expansion misleading?

I would have thought it was because the notation is not just for objects.

cabo commented 2 years ago

Using the expanded version of the acronym gives the impression that this specification is in some way entangled with JavaScript. (The fact that Glyn reads "JavaScript Object" as a reference to the string-keyed maps JavaScript started out with is another example for the confusion.)

gregsdennis commented 2 years ago

I feel like anyone who knows about JSON had likely come across our asked about its relationship with its namesake. I don't really think this is something that is needed.

I mean, do it if it makes you feel better, but it's not really necessary.

cabo commented 2 years ago

In the RFC series, the expansion is no longer needed, which is a good thing, because the expansion is misleading. This PR adapts the JSONPath specification to this fact. I'm not sure what "this" and "it" are in your message. This PR is not about making anyone of us feel better, it is about improving the document to be less misleading.

glyn commented 2 years ago

I think we are all agreed that merging is fine.