Skip to content

Clarify that plain name fragments are neither canonical or non-canonical #1192

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

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Mar 14, 2022

Conversation

Relequestual
Copy link
Member

Attempt to resolve #937

Attempt to resolve json-schema-org#937
Add note and cref in appendix A clarifying that we intended to define a URI phrasing which would avoid the requirement to allow for location shadowing in implementations, as this is tricky. Clarifying that plain name fragments should always be supported, and that they only can work in relation to the base URI of the Schema Resource. Otherwise there could be duplicate plain name fragments and addressing wouldn't work
Copy link
Member

@karenetheridge karenetheridge left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks good, modulo a few spelling errors.

Relequestual and others added 2 commits March 14, 2022 11:03
Co-authored-by: Karen Etheridge <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Karen Etheridge <[email protected]>
@Relequestual Relequestual merged commit db65da8 into json-schema-org:master Mar 14, 2022
@Relequestual Relequestual deleted the canonical-anchor branch March 14, 2022 11:10
Relequestual added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 16, 2022
…cal (#1192)

* Clarify that plain name fragments are neither canonical or non-canonical
Attempt to resolve #937
Add note and cref in appendix A clarifying that we intended to define a URI phrasing which would avoid the requirement to allow for location shadowing in implementations, as this is tricky. Clarifying that plain name fragments should always be supported, and that they only can work in relation to the base URI of the Schema Resource. Otherwise there could be duplicate plain name fragments and addressing wouldn't work.
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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants