Skip to content

Clarify that plain name fragments are neither canonical or non-canonical #1192

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Mar 14, 2022
Merged

Clarify that plain name fragments are neither canonical or non-canonical #1192

Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
e5f8d41
Clarify that plain name fragments are neither canonical or non-canonical
Relequestual Feb 22, 2022
a5c3b07
Fix spelling
Relequestual Mar 14, 2022
cdba14e
Fix spelling
Relequestual Mar 14, 2022
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
27 changes: 22 additions & 5 deletions jsonschema-core.xml
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -50,7 +50,7 @@
</address>
</author>

<date year="2021"/>
<date year="2022"/>
<workgroup>Internet Engineering Task Force</workgroup>
<keyword>JSON</keyword>
<keyword>Schema</keyword>
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -1824,10 +1824,10 @@
reference target, is preferable.
</t>
<t>
An implementation MAY choose not to support addressing schemas
by non-canonical URIs. As such, it is RECOMMENDED that schema authors only
use canonical URIs, as using non-canonical URIs may reduce
schema interoperability.
An implementation MAY choose not to support addressing schema resources
(and their subschemas) by non-canonical URIs.
As such, it is RECOMMENDED that schema authors only use canonical URIs,
as using non-canonical URIs may reduce schema interoperability.
<cref>
This is to avoid requiring implementations to keep track of a whole
stack of possible base URIs and JSON Pointer fragments for each,
Expand All @@ -1836,6 +1836,11 @@
no point in forbidding it, while others have argued that it complicates
schema identification and should be forbidden. Feedback on this
topic is encouraged.
After some discussion, we feel that we need to remove the use of
"canonical" in favour of talking about JSON Pointers which reference
across schema resource boundaries as undefined or even forbidden behavior
(https://github.com/json-schema-org/json-schema-spec/issues/937,
https://github.com/json-schema-org/json-schema-spec/issues/1183)
</cref>
</t>
<t>
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -3390,6 +3395,18 @@ https://example.com/schemas/common#/$defs/count/minimum
</t>
</list>
</t>
<t>
Note: The fragment part of the URI does not make it canonical or non-canonical,
rather, the base URI used (as part of the full URI with any fragment) is what
determines the canonical nature of the resutling full URI.
<cref>
Multiple "canonical" URIs? We Acknowledge this is potetnially confusing, and
direct you to read the CREF located in the
<xref target="embedded">JSON Pointer fragments and embedded schema resources</xref>
section for futher comments.
</cref>
</t>

</section>

<section title="Manipulating schema documents and references">
Expand Down