Skip to content

adds formats registry considerations #3204

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Jul 25, 2023
Merged

adds formats registry considerations #3204

merged 3 commits into from
Jul 25, 2023

Conversation

baywet
Copy link
Contributor

@baywet baywet commented Mar 16, 2023

related #3196

MikeRalphson
MikeRalphson reviewed Mar 21, 2023
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@MikeRalphson MikeRalphson left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM - just a couple of suggestions as not all formats have a linked standard, but it doesn't necessarily make them ambiguous.

@baywet
Copy link
Contributor Author

baywet commented Mar 21, 2023

@handrews I just wanted to surface this one up for you in case you didn't see it :) Your feedback is always welcome.

handrews
handrews reviewed Mar 21, 2023
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@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.

I'm generally OK with this, and don't feel super-strongly about the one comment I made.

registry/format.md
@@ -5,6 +5,16 @@ permalink: /registry/format/index.html

# Formats Registry

## Considerations

The existence of a format in this registry DOES NOT require tools to implement it.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The RFC 2119 way to say this would be something like:

Tools MAY implement formats beyond those defined in the OpenAPI specification as they are defined here, but are not required to do so.

or (less commonly seen)

Implementing formats beyond those defined in the OpenAPI specification as they are defined here is strictly OPTIONAL

I don't care about the exact wording, but we should probably not all-caps non-RFC 2119 terms. OPTIONAL and MAY have the same weight in RFC 2119. The OPTIONAL wording above feels closer to what you wrote.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@webron Please suggest a revision to this.

@ralfhandl ralfhandl mentioned this pull request Mar 23, 2023
Closed
darrelmiller
darrelmiller reviewed Mar 23, 2023
View reviewed changes
darrelmiller
darrelmiller reviewed Mar 23, 2023
View reviewed changes
@darrelmiller darrelmiller merged commit 44cf3d7 into OAI:gh-pages Jul 25, 2023
@baywet baywet deleted the feature/formats-abstract branch July 25, 2023 14:23
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@MikeRalphson MikeRalphson MikeRalphson left review comments

@darrelmiller darrelmiller darrelmiller left review comments

@handrews handrews handrews left review comments

@ralfhandl ralfhandl ralfhandl approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
5 participants
@baywet @MikeRalphson @darrelmiller @ralfhandl @handrews