Skip to content

Add non-http "method": "post" LDO example #282

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

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 27, 2017

Conversation

handrews
Copy link
Contributor

This PR need not necessarily go into Draft 06

I'm posting this mostly to illustrate some of the arguments in #280, particularly around avoiding coupling of JSON Hyper-Schema and any particular URI scheme or protocol.

If we can't figure out a reasonable mapping for mailto: then we might be missing something. Although that something will probably need to wait until Draft 07 for a fix.

I am aware that it's more common to use an HTTP request to ask the server to send mail, but I think this still makes a good example. If the client for this resource runs in a known environment, it could be reasonable to expect the client to send mail if it wants to.


Add an example showing how a non-HTTP URI scheme can be used,
showing a form for constructing an email with two different
representations, as well as requiring a subject.

"media": { "type": "text/html" }
}
],
"minItmes": 2
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

typo: minItems

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

heh. Maybe I should remember to validate my examples against the meta-schema :-P

Add an example showing how a non-HTTP URI scheme can be used,
showing a form for constructing an email with two different
representations, as well as requiring a subject.
@jdesrosiers
Copy link
Member

I think this makes sense. This is a lot like how you would do it with an HTML Form.

@handrews handrews requested a review from awwright March 25, 2017 04:22
@handrews
Copy link
Contributor Author

@awwright if you agree with @jdesrosiers that this is reasonable, should we go ahead and add it to Draft 06? It shouldn't change anything, only clarify.

@handrews handrews mentioned this pull request Mar 26, 2017
8 tasks
@handrews handrews added this to the draft-next (draft-6) milestone Mar 26, 2017
@awwright
Copy link
Member

It's maybe a bit more verbose than ought to be necessary, but still, a good illustration of this behavior is probably warranted.

@handrews
Copy link
Contributor Author

@awwright I tend to be verbose, unfortunately. Anything in particular you'd trim?

@handrews
Copy link
Contributor Author

@awwright did that comment count as an approval?

@awwright
Copy link
Member

I think I just needed to sit on it another day. Looks good.

@handrews
Copy link
Contributor Author

@awwright thanks! Totally reasonable, just wasn't quite clear :-)

@handrews handrews merged commit 436b1b4 into json-schema-org:master Mar 27, 2017
@handrews handrews deleted the enctype branch August 27, 2017 22:54
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants