"$vocabulary" and basic vocabulary support. #671
Conversation
handrews
requested review from
philsturgeon,
Julian,
awwright,
Relequestual and
gregsdennis
handrews
force-pushed
the
vocab-basic
branch
from
713e66a
to
7347743
Compare
|
|
|
In the most recent commit, I have tried to make it clear at the start of the |
All of those other sections were not intended to be subsections of the "$vocabulary" keyword section.
Clarify both the mandatory standard way, and that there is a non-interoperable option for implementation-specific functionality or optimizations.
Per review feedback, explicit is probably better than implicit here. At least until we get more real-world feedback. Easier to relax it later if we need to than add it.
Since we now define two in this document.
It relates to the schemas described by the meta-schema, not to the meta-schema itself.
handrews
force-pushed
the
vocab-basic
branch
from
c2934ed
to
b5290df
Compare
Both of these should be considered required, plus remove the wording implying that only the core vocabulary would be in the default "$vocabulary" value.
|
OK, I think I've addressed (either with changes or explanations) all of the feedback. @gregsdennis and @jgonzalezdr does this seem good? Keep in mind that we can continue to consider wording improvements through the final review period. @awwright since it's been more than two weeks since I replied to your comment with no further response from you I'm assuming you're OK with things. Please speak up in the next couple days if not (or if you don't see this until after it is merged, just file an issue and I'll be happy to revisit it). |
Co-Authored-By: handrews <andrews_henry@yahoo.com>
|
Wahhoooo! :D |
|
If we had a budget or such, this would be huge cause for celebration! =D |
It is recommended that the commits in this PR be reviewed one at a time, to avoid formatting changes making things more complicated than they are. See also their individual commit messages.
Addresses #561, #564, #567
I expect the wording here to have to go through some revision, but as is often the case I decided I just needed to post something to get the conversation started.
Key points:
When declaring the use of a vocabulary, you can indicate whether it is required or not, but that is all
For now, I'd rather not mandate any sort of vocabulary description file. As we get feedback, we will no doubt learn what is best put there. On the other hand, if implementation maintainers would like to hook specific keyword detection into their extension mechanism, I could reconsider and add such a thing as another PR. *[EDIT: For a variety of reasons,I will probably try to do this now after all]** [EDIT TO EDIT: actually I probably won't, see further comments in the issue]This stuff gets a bit complicated. As with recursive references, most people will not need to write these things or understand their details, so in my view a relatively complex approach is acceptable. Plus, I've been talking this up for nearly a year and no one has proposed anything simpler yet :-)