Skip to content

added some verbiage to the vocabularies example for clarity #756

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

Closed
wants to merge 8 commits into from
Closed

Conversation

gregsdennis
Copy link
Member

Some of the text in the example isn't proper "spec-ese" but in the context of an example, I think that's fine.

Copy link
Member

@Relequestual Relequestual left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It took me a little while to understand the first set of change. I'd like to have a crack at rewriting that.
Otherwise, the changes look reasonable.

@Relequestual
Copy link
Member

"Request changes" is more for me =]

gregsdennis and others added 2 commits July 2, 2019 07:14
Make it clearer that if an unkown vocab has `false` as its value, it can be ignored, and any keywords it would add should be ignored.
Redefine behaviour of `false` value on `$vocabularies` object to SHOULD rather than MAY, which I feel is likely better in line with intent and schema authors expectations, given the `true/false` value represents if the vocab is always required for procesing (or not).
@Relequestual
Copy link
Member

Looks like I'm using an older version of xml2rfc.
We should make sure the required version is installed when running make.

@gregsdennis
Copy link
Member Author

This looks good to me.

@gregsdennis
Copy link
Member Author

Seems like @handrews went his own way. Probably don't need this in the spec anymore.

Might still be useful for the site, though.

@gregsdennis gregsdennis closed this Aug 8, 2019
@handrews
Copy link
Contributor

handrews commented Aug 8, 2019

@gregsdennis I had actually not intended to invalidate this and had meant to come back and look at reconciling, but perhaps it's better for me to just finish the PR I have up and we can see what's still needed.

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