-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 319
Relative JSON Pointer specification inconsistency #1175
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Comments
I can see this going either way. I believe the spec requires that the instance location to which @Relequestual I think this should be fixed in the patch release? If you agree with me here it's just that something was left out of the ABNF, so this would not be adding to the set of functionality expressed by the examples. Granted, the ABNF should be normative, but I think the intent was to support this. |
Per Slack conversation with @Relequestual I believe that there will not be a release of the Relative JSON Pointer spec alongside the immanent JSON Schema patch release, but I am advocating for (and volunteering to do the work for) an update of Relative JSON Pointer shortly afterwards. |
It looks like this has been resolved by #1400 and can be closed. |
Kind of. The spec still hasn't been republished. Henry tells me there's a bit more he wants to clarify/adjust on it, but he hasn't had time. |
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
First issue: text part of section 3. Syntax does not describe
[index-manipulation]
which is present in ABNF.Second issue: one of examples (
0-1#
) does not comply with ABNF --#
can't be used together with[index-manipulation]
.Is ABNF the ultimate truth? Should I refer to it when implementing Relative JSON Pointers? Or does ABNF require fixes? In any case, I could make a pull request with fixes, if anyone can tell me what exactly needs to be fixed.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: