Canonical source URL

[ocram]

As suggested here: #28

[DonDebonair]

I like it, but maybe we could go for a simpler url. The fact that it's a root element, makes it clear enough that it defines the location where the document itself can be found (IMHO).

[ocram]

@dandydev One could definitely do that. The term canonical/official could be used in the description to make it clear.

[wdoekes]

+1 to just url, but I don't have a simple answer to the questions raised by @thomasdavis in #28.

[osg]

+1 for url

[DonDebonair]

@mwaclawek could you update your PR to rename the field to url?

[ocram]

@dandydev updated

[DonDebonair]

Can @thomasdavis chime in if it's ok to merge this?

[erming]

Ping @thomasdavis

Should we accept the url property?

[stp-ip]

LGTM. I would say it's save to merge. Only the description could be finetuned later on.

[osg]

Rarely do people come back to get to the documentation bits. How about an action verb with a solid description before merging.

[chrisdotcode]

I think canonical is better than url - the former has explicit semantic meaning, meaning "latest version can be found here" while the latter doesn't.

Besides, what if the canonical version for someone's resume in in some book somewhere?

This should also be optional. Non-hackers who don't host their own stuff might just using JSON Resume as a transit format and have no canonical.

[olivif]

@chrisdotcode +1 for making it optional.

@opensourcegrrrl +1 for updated description although I have no idea what would be better.

Given the changes requested, we might need a new PR (or updates to this one if @mwaclawek is still around)

[aloisdg]

I personaly prefer "latest". As far as I know, it is widely used (jQuery or readthedocs for example).

By the way, should we talk here or on #28?

[chrisdotcode]

PRs are transient, issues are definitive. Let's all move to #28.