v3.3: remove invalid mention of prefixEncoding, itemEncoding here#5441
Open
karenetheridge wants to merge 2 commits into
Open
v3.3: remove invalid mention of prefixEncoding, itemEncoding here#5441karenetheridge wants to merge 2 commits into
karenetheridge wants to merge 2 commits into
Conversation
karenetheridge
changed the title
karenetheridge
force-pushed
the
ether/invalid-prefixEncoding
branch
from
July 21, 2026 00:21
7cc6e85 to
82fb935
Compare
karenetheridge
commented
Jul 21, 2026
karenetheridge
left a comment
karenetheridge
left a comment
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
some extra commentary here as I keep re-reading various sections of the spec and noticing inconsistencies between them, or things that we mandate without a clear reason for doing so.
baywet
reviewed
Jul 23, 2026
Member
Author
|
I would like to determine if this can be backported to 3.2.1. I would argue it should, as it is a simplification in both understanding and implementation, and not an imposition of new requirements. (I am also not aware of anyone having implemented prefixEncoding/itemEncoding yet, either, so fixing this now makes everything nicer). |
handrews
previously approved these changes
Jul 27, 2026
In section 4.14.5.2 (Encoding by Position) we already said: "To use the prefixEncoding and/or itemEncoding fields, either itemSchema or a schema indicating an array type MUST be present.", however there is no parallel guidance in 4.14.5.1 (Encoding by Name) that says that the encoding field MUST also have a schema indicating an object type present.
This is the same phrasing as in "Encoding by Name" which states that the `encoding` fields do nothing if they don't have a corresponding data instance.
karenetheridge
force-pushed
the
ether/invalid-prefixEncoding
branch
from
July 27, 2026 03:03
82fb935 to
61252a5
Compare
handrews
approved these changes
Jul 27, 2026
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
In section 4.14.5.2 (Encoding by Position) we already said: "To use the prefixEncoding and/or itemEncoding fields, either itemSchema or a schema indicating an array type MUST be present.", however there is no parallel guidance in 4.14.5.1 (Encoding by Name) that says that the encoding field MUST also have a schema indicating an object type present.
(I already edited this sentence earlier in this release cycle to add mention of prefixEncoding alongside itemEncoding, but this entire sentence is inconsistent with the previous section, so we should either remove this sentence entirely, or soften the previous statement about prefixEncoding and itemEncoding requiring an array schema.)