Skip to content
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

Make "rel" required. #393

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Sep 15, 2017
Merged

Make "rel" required. #393

merged 2 commits into from
Sep 15, 2017

Conversation

handrews
Copy link
Contributor

@handrews handrews commented Sep 3, 2017

Addresses #297

There are two commits here: the first simply makes "rel" required, while
the second attempts to address concerns over having to create new URIs
for custom link relations by pointing out two simple approaches.

The "rel" section is getting large, but I will address that when I address
#377 in which I have suggested a new outline to more clearly organize
the spec.

RFC 5988bis lists the link relation type as one of the three
required aspects of a link.

Since we do not need to support the deprecated "rev" mechanisms
for specifying relation types, we can make "rel" required.

This will encourage hyper-schema authors to think more about
choosing relation types.

@handrews handrews added this to the draft-07 (wright-*-02) milestone Sep 3, 2017
@handrews handrews requested review from awwright and dlax September 3, 2017 04:55
@@ -792,8 +792,8 @@
encouraged to mint their own extension relation types, as described in
<xref target="RFC5988">section 4.2 of RFC 5988</xref>. The simplest
approaches for choosing link relation type URIs are to either use
a URI scheme that the system is already using to identify its primary
resources, or to use a human-readable, no-dereferenceable URI scheme
a URI scheme that is already in use identify the system's primary
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

already in use to identify

RFC 5988bis lists the link relation type as one of the three
required aspects of a link.

Since we do not need to support the deprecated "rev" mechanisms
for specifying relation types, we can make "rel" required.

This will encourage hyper-schema authors to think more about
choosing relation types.
Using URIs for custom relation types is often a little
intimidating, and frequently ignored.  Provide some guidance
on some simple approaches to make it easier for hyper-schema
authors to use this now-required field correctly.
@handrews
Copy link
Contributor Author

Last call! Barring objections, this will get merged in the next day or two.

@handrews handrews merged commit 35d1524 into json-schema-org:master Sep 15, 2017
@handrews handrews deleted the req-rel branch September 15, 2017 22:45
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants