Subject: [apps-discuss] FYI: For review... draft-snell-merge-patch-02

From: James M Snell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 10:36:19 -0700

Hello All,

I have submitted an updated version of draft-snell-merge-patch [1]
that fixes a few editorial issues.

Feedback is quite welcome.

- James

[1] http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-snell-merge-patch-02.txt

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 08:37:19 +0200

> Feedback is quite welcome.

Hi there.

a) "application/json+merge-patch" seems like a good thing; however, I 
wonder whether it wouldn't be simpler to just declare the described 
semantics as "the" PATCH semantics for application/json?

b) on the other hand, "application/merge-patch" seems to be a 
fundamentally bad idea; after all, it's not really a media type; if you 
want to develop this further, I strongly recommend moving it into a 
separate spec.

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 22:29:55 +1000

On 11/06/2012, at 4:37 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> a) "application/json+merge-patch" seems like a good thing; however, I wonder whether it wouldn't be simpler to just declare the described semantics as "the" PATCH semantics for application/json?

Can that be done retroactively?

> b) on the other hand, "application/merge-patch" seems to be a fundamentally bad idea; after all, it's not really a media type; if you want to develop this further, I strongly recommend moving it into a separate spec.

I'm not sure it's a good idea, full stop; are the semantics actually clear for any conceivable target format? 

I'm also -1 on doing a +merge-patch suffix. If it's possible to abuse an ill-defined naming convention, this is it.

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 14:40:09 +0200

> Can that be done retroactively?

If we update RFC 4627?

> ...

Best regards, Julian

---

From: James M Snell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 11:28:33 -0700

Per the feedback provided here, I have published an updated rev of the
spec that pulls the generic merge-patch type back out and focused
specifically and solely on the json semantics. The json type is
renamed to "application/json-merge-patch". This should address all of
the voiced concerns.

Update is here: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-snell-merge-patch-03.txt

- James