Skip to content

Core: Improve language for schema references section #551

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 6 commits into from
Mar 1, 2018

Conversation

awwright
Copy link
Member

No description provided.

@awwright awwright requested a review from handrews February 28, 2018 20:24
Copy link
Contributor

@handrews handrews left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This is great, lots of improvement. I just have one nitpick and one minor point of confusion.

any number of letters, digits ([0-9]), hyphens ("-"), underscores ("_"), colons
(":"), or periods (".").
To specify such a subschema identifier,
the "$id" keyword is set to a URI reference with a name fragment (not a JSON Pointer fragment).
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I was using "plain name" rather than just "name" because that is the terminology used in the W3C fragment best practices document that we cite. i think we should be consistent with that.

and the URIs that identify them.
</t>
<t>
When schemas are downloaded,
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don't follow this paragraph. Taking the dependent clause out I read "When schemas are downloaded... see Usage over HTTP" which is a bit unclear.

Could this be rephrased as something like:

"For use cases when it is desirable to download schemas, such as a hypermedia system where schemas are discovered at runtime, see Usage for Hypermedia"

Note I'm proposing linking to section 11 as a whole rather than 11.3, because the actual linking of a downloadable schema is covered in 11.1, and I think that is needed to fully understand the issue (along with 11.3).

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Oh, I totally missed that. Yes, I was looking for that section.

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.

2 participants