-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 316
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
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this 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.
"Request changes" is more for me =] |
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).
Looks like I'm using an older version of xml2rfc. |
This looks good to me. |
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 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. |
Some of the text in the example isn't proper "spec-ese" but in the context of an example, I think that's fine.