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

Is "name" always a SHOULD for Object types? #296

Closed
evanp opened this issue Mar 16, 2016 · 12 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
3 participants
@evanp
Copy link
Collaborator

commented Mar 16, 2016

Please Indicate One:

  • Editorial
  • Question
  • Feedback
  • Blocking Issue
  • Non-Blocking Issue

Please Describe the Issue:

@jasnell

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

commented Mar 16, 2016

It's exactly the same rule as AS1, name should be provided but it is not required. For best interop, especially when using extension types, providing a name is strongly recommended.

@jasnell jasnell added the question label Mar 16, 2016

@evanp

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

commented Mar 17, 2016

OK. Many of the top-level objects in our example documents don't have a name -- especially Activity and Collection objects.

@evanp evanp changed the title Is "name" always required for Object types? Is "name" always a SHOULD for Object types? Mar 17, 2016

@evanp

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

commented Mar 17, 2016

PROPOSAL: explain the reasons for this being a SHOULD

@jasnell jasnell added the editorial label Apr 4, 2016

@evanp

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

commented Apr 19, 2016

@jasnell I should probably be more specific. For the ~169 examples in core and vocabulary, 54 of them have a "name" for the top-level object in the example. 115 don't.

I think we either need to provide a "name" for all the examples, or we need to be more specific for which types of objects "name" is a should. Many of our examples are Activity or Collection types, which I think are probably fine not to have a "name".

@jasnell

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

commented Apr 19, 2016

If there's a concise way to explain the differences then I'm all for it ;-) It's likely easier just to add a name to all of the examples tho.

@evanp

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

commented Apr 25, 2016

Like I said, there are 115 of them, plus all the variant versions in different encodings.

@evanp

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

commented Apr 26, 2016

@jasnell Do you have a tool for updating the examples in different encodings?

@jasnell

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

commented Apr 27, 2016

heh... "tool" he says. ha!! unfortunately not

@evanp

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

commented May 3, 2016

@jasnell I'm pretty close to unilaterally discarding the other encodings, and re-introducing them at the very end of the process.

@jasnell

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

commented May 3, 2016

Works for me. I wanted to do that before but was blocked from doing so.
On May 3, 2016 7:57 AM, "Evan Prodromou" notifications@github.com wrote:

@jasnell https://github.com/jasnell I'm pretty close to unilaterally
discarding the other encodings, and re-introducing them at the very end of
the process.


You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#296 (comment)

@jasnell

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

commented May 3, 2016

Well, at least for microdata which has no canonical mapping
On May 3, 2016 12:53 PM, "James M Snell" jasnell@gmail.com wrote:

Works for me. I wanted to do that before but was blocked from doing so.
On May 3, 2016 7:57 AM, "Evan Prodromou" notifications@github.com wrote:

@jasnell https://github.com/jasnell I'm pretty close to unilaterally
discarding the other encodings, and re-introducing them at the very end of
the process.


You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#296 (comment)

@evanp

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

commented May 10, 2016

All right, it's done. I've removed the examples that aren't JSON-LD, and I've updated all the objects in examples so they have "name" properties.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.