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

Change website to url #148

Closed
dbkaplun opened this issue Sep 23, 2014 · 16 comments
Closed

Change website to url #148

dbkaplun opened this issue Sep 23, 2014 · 16 comments
Milestone

Comments

@dbkaplun
Copy link
Member

No description provided.

@osg
Copy link

osg commented Sep 23, 2014

+1

2 similar comments
@JaredCubilla
Copy link
Contributor

+1

@TimDaub
Copy link

TimDaub commented Nov 10, 2014

+1

@DonDebonair
Copy link
Member

+1
@thomasdavis I think there's enough support to go ahead and merge the PR?

@osg
Copy link

osg commented Feb 1, 2015

bump @thomasdavis

@olivif
Copy link
Collaborator

olivif commented Nov 18, 2015

+1

shall we merge? :)

@chrisdotcode
Copy link
Member

I'm indifferent to this - and I don't mind merging it, but can someone give me reason as to why they prefer 'url'?

@stp-ip
Copy link
Member

stp-ip commented Nov 18, 2015

A url could point to a resource, an app or similar, it does not need to be a website. In addition to that it makes all urls consistently with naming them url.
(as a sidenote: bibJSON uses "source")

@chrisdotcode chrisdotcode added this to the v1.0.0 milestone Nov 18, 2015
@chrisdotcode
Copy link
Member

Sounds good. We'll merge this when we can.

@olivif olivif closed this as completed Dec 24, 2015
@aloisdg
Copy link
Contributor

aloisdg commented Dec 25, 2015

Sorry, to add a new comment. Just to say that I think about @stp-ip sidenote and I really like it. It will add more cohesion with bibjson. I feel that it is more "human-compliant".

bibjson spec:

"source": {
         "description": "The URL where the collection file was uploaded from, if there is one",
         "format": "url",
         "type": "string"
       },

Since every body seems agree with URL. I think we should keep it for the current version, but , at least, keep this idea for the next one.

@olivif
Copy link
Collaborator

olivif commented Dec 25, 2015

@aloisdg hmm, interesting. I do like it. Let's re-open and rename the issue to url -> source so we don't forget 😄

@olivif olivif reopened this Dec 25, 2015
@olivif olivif changed the title Change website to url Change url to (bibJSON) source Dec 25, 2015
@aloisdg
Copy link
Contributor

aloisdg commented Dec 25, 2015

Glad you like it too 😄 By the way, the new title shouldn't be "How to rename website?" or "What would be a better alternative for website?"

Call an url "url" is like called a string "string", isn't it?

@olivif
Copy link
Collaborator

olivif commented Dec 25, 2015

@aloisdg I think there was a PR for this which already got merged in, so the property is called Url now (used to be website). That's why "Change url to (bibJSON) source" made sense to me 😄

@aloisdg
Copy link
Contributor

aloisdg commented Dec 25, 2015

@olivif The conversation was created for an older version. I think that we should read it straight. With the current title, it seems that the fourth first commenters agree with the switch to "source". Thats not right.

@olivif olivif changed the title Change url to (bibJSON) source Change website to url Dec 25, 2015
@olivif
Copy link
Collaborator

olivif commented Dec 25, 2015

@aloisdg yeah I agree, it's confusing. maybe we should create a new issue instead of reusing this? 😄

@stp-ip
Copy link
Member

stp-ip commented Dec 25, 2015

It's a different issue in my opinion. Most likely 2-3:

  • Use source instead of url to be similar to bibjson
  • Use source instead of url for all occurances (I would probably dislike that. As a website is not really the source.)

Closing as the old issue is done and anything else should start with a clean issue.

@stp-ip stp-ip closed this as completed Dec 25, 2015
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

No branches or pull requests

9 participants