Vocab data v2 #316
Vocab data v2 #316
Conversation
github-actions
bot
added
documentation
|
With the latest edits, I have a few more changes to make to the implementation.
|
| - [Relative JSON Pointers](https://json-schema.org/draft/2019-09/relative-json-pointer.html) | ||
| - URI references per [RFC 3986](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3986), potentially with JSON Pointer fragments | ||
| - URI-encoded JSON Pointer identifier per [RFC 6901, §6](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6901#section-6) | ||
| - Absolute URIs per [RFC 3986](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3986), optionally with a JSON Pointer fragment identifier |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nitpick: by definition, absolute URIs do not have fragments. I think the language we use in the JSON Schema spec is "full URI (with scheme)".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"with" here means "additionally"
| - [Relative JSON Pointers](https://json-schema.org/draft/2019-09/relative-json-pointer.html) | ||
| - URI references per [RFC 3986](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3986), potentially with JSON Pointer fragments | ||
| - URI-encoded JSON Pointer identifier per [RFC 6901, §6](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6901#section-6) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If instead you say "fragment-only URI using URI-encoded JSON Pointers per..." then you can get rid of the statement about parsing order further down, because fragment-only URIs, full URIs, JPs, and RJPs do not overlap at all in syntax. Unless you're trying to support some non-fragment-only references? But that seems confusing.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sure, I can make this update. The only catch is I am trying to support full URIs + JP fragments (https://example.com/data#/foo).
| { "format": "json-pointer" }, | ||
| { "format": "relative-json-pointer" } | ||
| { "format": "relative-json-pointer" }, | ||
| { "format": "uri-reference" } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You can add "pattern": "^#" to restrict this to fragment-only URIs if you go with that suggestion I made earlier.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we have a format for full (absolute) URI that could also include a JP fragment? I'd have to split out uri-reference to support "JP fragment URI" and "full URI with (+) optional JP fragment" as separate items (which is fine, but I'd have to do it).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've split this to iri and iri-reference-with-pattern.
(I've also updated to use IRI instead of URI.)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we have a format for full (absolute) URI that could also include a JP fragment?
@gregsdennis one of my many half-designed format-replacement vocabularies would be capable of this 🙃
gregsdennis
added
the
json-everything.net
Resolves some conversations with @handrews in the JSON Schema Slack workspace.
Change summary:
This brings
dataresolution in closer alignment with$ref(and potentially solves some other issues.