Clarify relationship to jsonpath-standard

[cburgmer]

Hey, I've lost a bit track of the developments over at https://github.com/jsonpath-standard. However, I understand that while Proposal A was a good start for a discussion, we have since moved on and it has become obsolete. So have all the open issues here related to that.
At the same time there is now a growing reference implementation.

Would the right thing be to replace Proposal A under https://cburgmer.github.io/json-path-comparison/ with the reference implementation? @glyn

I'm happy for the comparison project to continue to document all the implementations out there, and would then change the roadmap accordingly!

[glyn]

Would the right thing be to replace Proposal A under https://cburgmer.github.io/json-path-comparison/ with the reference implementation? @glyn

Please note the reference implementation has a long way to go yet, although I don't mind it being added to show up the (rather large) gap. It might therefore be more reasonable to add the reference implementation alongside Proposal A for comparison.

Also, I guess other reference implementations might come along and need adding too. This depends on the IETF JSONPath Working Group's attitude to, and adoption of, one or more reference implementations.

[cburgmer]

Added the reference implementation to the table, but now running into mkmik/slyce#17 under Ubuntu.