From 439e8eb9da4194e600ad830aeb1740287d08fe14 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Ralf Handl Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2024 09:30:10 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] Second pattern is problematic See https://github.com/OAI/OpenAPI-Specification/pull/3818#issuecomment-2282862601 --- versions/3.0.4.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/versions/3.0.4.md b/versions/3.0.4.md index 7e7a336cf8..ba4b7c95dd 100644 --- a/versions/3.0.4.md +++ b/versions/3.0.4.md @@ -4020,7 +4020,7 @@ parameters: type: string ``` -This example is equivalent to RFC6570's `{?foo*,bar}`, and **_NOT_** `{?foo*}{&bar}`, which is problematic because if `foo` is not defined, the result will be an invalid URI. +This example is equivalent to RFC6570's `{?foo*,bar}`, and **_NOT_** `{?foo*}{&bar}`. The latter is problematic because if `foo` is not defined, the result will be an invalid URI. The `&` prefix operator has no equivalent in the Parameter Object. Note that RFC6570 does not specify behavior for compound values beyond the single level addressed by `explode`. The results of using objects or arrays where no behavior is clearly specified for them is implementation-defined.