-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 276
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
Add (minimal) metadata to schema #204 #237
Conversation
Great initiative! Alright, we can use this as the base PR to merge in. Here is the original discussion #204 Let's start with changing |
Let's just push get something simple through, the scope is pretty big. In essence, |
Alright, sounds good. |
Awesome. Do we want to add version into this basic PR too? That would cover the most basic use from resumejson itself. Know where to get the document, when it was modified and at which version it seems to be. |
Let's leave version out until next PR. |
Ok. |
Mostly because I am also unsure if we should document sub properties of meta in the schema. Generally the tools can take care of it, even the version. |
I would say a standard version should be in. All tool related stuff should be documented to be inside of a namespace such as meta.awesomeeditor.key. |
+1 to that, another PR to add a nested version property. I will write up some documentation about vendors name spacing. |
There has been some discussion about adding a metadata section to the schema. So I have wrote this as a suggestion.
The desire to have a metadata section has been mentioned in different issues. What most of these have in common is that it needs to store information that is not related to the person of the resume, but to the document itself. For example a URL where the document is hosted or a version number of the document.
I thinks this type of information indeed warrants a new section, so I've added a single metadata object in the resume schema.
Since this is a section where different tools and programs might need different keys, I've allowed for additional properties. Since the issue specified a list of key/value pair, the additional properties are only allowed to be string and numbers, not arrays or objects.
Any feedback is welcome