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

format 'uri' and URI-references #58

Closed
fd opened this issue Jun 22, 2014 · 3 comments
Closed

format 'uri' and URI-references #58

fd opened this issue Jun 22, 2014 · 3 comments

Comments

@fd
Copy link

fd commented Jun 22, 2014

If this is invalid and idis supposted to be a uri (and not a relative reference). Then why is this valid?

@zaggino
Copy link
Contributor

zaggino commented Jun 22, 2014

One old id discussion here zaggino/z-schema#18

@fd
Copy link
Author

fd commented Jun 23, 2014

ok so in draft4 an exception is made for id which allows them to be relative references.

@handrews
Copy link
Contributor

@fd in Draft 4 the "uri" format included relative references. This was corrected in Draft 5 which has both "uri" and "uriref" formats, where any "uri" is a valid "uriref", but "uriref" can include relative-references which are not valid under "uri". See json-schema-org/json-schema-org.github.io#57 which shows the proposed draft 5 meta-schema where "id" is format "uriref" while "$schema" is format "uri".

Since issue #136 is already tracking creating tests for the new draft(s), I think this issue can be closed?

@Julian Julian closed this as completed Feb 3, 2017
Julian added a commit that referenced this issue Feb 3, 2017
Plenty of confusion still about Draft 3/4's URI, but
that's already being addressed in Draft 6.

After this PR, the tests here are at least internally
consistent (at this point they all consider only URIs
not URI references).

Refs: #58, #77, #156

* awwright/master:
  Flip protocol-relative URI Reference (not a URI)
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

No branches or pull requests

4 participants