-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 315
"description" in the LDO #325
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
Comments
Paging some hypermedia users (off the top of my head, apologies for missing anyone) @awwright @geemus @seagreen @dret @dlax any thoughts on this? I see @jdesrosiers gave it a thumbs up. This should be a pretty simple yes or no, I hope. We use this extensively in Cloudflare's documentation tool. I'd suggest the API Doc vocabulary, except this exactly parallels |
On Aug 19, 2017, at 01:20, Henry Andrews ***@***.***> wrote:
Paging some hypermedia users (off the top of my head, apologies for missing anyone) @awwright @geemus @seagreen @dret any thoughts on this? I see @jdesrosiers gave it a thumbs up. This should be a pretty simple yes or no, I hope.
RFC 5988bis does not have a description target attribute so linksets don't have it. but it's a very reasonable idea and seems to easily fit into the RFC 5988bis model as an extension target attribute. the linkset JSON syntax supports the same extensibility that the native syntax supports.
|
This addresses issue json-schema-org#325. It adds the description keyword, analogous to "description" in validation schemas. In RFC 5988bis parlance, "description" is an extension target attribute.
LGTM |
Added with #353. |
The LDO has
"title"
but not"description"
. When you think about the LDO in RFC 5988 or similar terms, this makes sense. But LDOs can easily support much more information than most link descriptions.In my experience, most schema authors expect
"description"
to be present in the LDO as well and used by documentation tools. That doesn't violate any aspect of JSON Hyper-Schema, but I think it should be official as it is the obvious expected behavior within a JSON Schema (rather than RFC 5988) context.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: