Skip to content
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

We don't have length/thickness under Product #1339

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from
Closed

We don't have length/thickness under Product #1339

wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

thadguidry
Copy link
Contributor

@thadguidry thadguidry commented Sep 2, 2016

We need to clarify that depth is also known as thickness.
In expanded form of the depth description, we could even say 'the depth or thickness or length of the item'. But this begs the question of how not to confuse thickness with height

In general terms, its left/right, front/back, top/bottom.

In the States, we typically express those same general terms of a Products' dimensions as length/width/height .. but for Product we currently have depth/width/height. I think for developers, that causes more harm than good in trying to align with those general terms.

Proposal:

  1. Rename depth to length instead. (or update its description to say 'the depth or length of the item'

Also found in the complaint #528 Product dimensions should be length x width x height

We need to clarify that depth is also known as thickness.
In expanded form of the depth description, we could even say 'the depth or thickness or length of the item'.  But this begs the question of how not to confuse thickness with height

In general terms, its left/right, front/backtop/bottom.

In the States, we typically express those same general term of a Products' dimensions as length/width/height  .. but for Product we currently have depth/width/height.  I think for developers, that causes more harm than good in trying to align with those general terms.
@danbri
Copy link
Contributor

danbri commented Sep 30, 2016

/cc @mfhepp - any thoughts?

@mfhepp
Copy link
Contributor

mfhepp commented Sep 30, 2016

Hmm. We already have properties for three dimensions. The naming might be suboptimal for some cases and straightforward for others.

I see two options:

  1. We revise the model and add a clean yet lightweight model for 3D geometries, because the current model works only for rectangular, solid shapes, and supports only a single shape per product (e.g. no packing vs. product size).
  2. We recommend the use of additionalProperty for additional measures by crafting examples.

I tend to recommend #2 because a clean model for 3D shapes will be quite some effort and likely hard to populate from existing databases.

Martin


martin hepp http://www.heppnetz.de
mhepp@computer.org @mfhepp

On 30 Sep 2016, at 16:21, Dan Brickley notifications@github.com wrote:

/cc @mfhepp - any thoughts?


You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

@thadguidry
Copy link
Contributor Author

+1 on using 2 , the use of additionalProperty with some good examples.

@danbri
Copy link
Contributor

danbri commented Sep 27, 2017

ok where are we with this? is the proposal to just updated the description? What about the mention of additionalProperty?

/cc @vholland @nicolastorzec @scor @rvguha @tilid @tmarshbing

@danbri
Copy link
Contributor

danbri commented Sep 27, 2017

(we're also btw now committing changes direct to master branch, so any PR will need to be targetted there, sorry for the administrivia)

@vholland
Copy link
Contributor

This and issue #544 about Product quantity seemed to split our collective energy. I am not sure if we should try to merge them under one issue or just be aware there are two.

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.

None yet

5 participants