Clarity for API Description namespace

[smizell]

Rendered

[smizell]

@zdne I've updated the doc, FYI.

[zdne]

👍

[zdne]

Done with the review. Please see my comments.

Legend:

• 👍 Yes. Let's do it.
• 👎 No, I am against this.
• 👌 I am easy on this one.
• ❔ Need more clarification to understand.

[smizell]

@zdne I've address some comments. If you can check those out, let me know, and maybe we can move forward.

[zdne]

@smizell

I've address some comments

I am not sure if you wanted to push any changes to this doc (if so a commit is missing?) or by "address" you simply mean you have add your comments on my comments.

In any case, I've replied to your comments on my comments 😆

[pksunkara]

I have reviewed and commented on with my opinions.

[zdne]

@smizell what is the status of this ?

[smizell]

@zdne I have unfortunately had no time to address this.

[zdne]

@smizell OK but it is still open and we are totally doing it, right? 👯

[smizell]

@zdne Yes! I want to do it, and think it needs to be done.

[kylef]

Typo: messageShema

[smizell]

@danielgtaylor I've added a few comments throughout.

@kylef Relying on you to address these comments through some PR to the Refract namespaces. Thanks for doing that (in advance)!

[zdne]

To me this PR is almost ready to go. The only really unresolved point seems to be the #1 (comment)

The rest can be addressed later by introducing a non-breaking change. I would focus mainly on what we need now and make sure we won't have to break it tomorrow (e.g. any future changes we see happening will be non-breaking).

Thoughts?

[smizell]

@zdne I agree. I think we should:

• Remove changes we'll address later
• Create other RFCs outlining those documents so we can discuss in further detail.

I think Kyle has already done some of the first.