Editorial: include JSON Schema into spec

[marcoscaceres]

Relates to #611 - we add the JSON schema as a non-normative note to describe the structure and types

This change (choose at least one, delete ones that don't apply):

• Makes editorial changes (changes informative sections, or changes normative sections without changing behavior)

Commit message:
Takes a snapshot of the JSON schema and adds it directly into the spec as a non-normative note.

---

Preview | Diff

[mgiuca]

Relates to #611 - we add the JSON schema as a non-normative note to describe the structure and types

So are you planning to expand on this and make it the actual normative basis for parsing the manifest? Or will it continue to be a non-normative note?

I don't really see the point of having this, when we already have a link out to it. It kind-of endorses it more, which might be a bad thing if it routinely gets out of date. It means there's a piece of spec that isn't controlled by this GitHub repo, and can be dynamically changed by a third party (even though it's in non-normative text). I'm weakly opposed to including it but OK with allowing.

[marcoscaceres]

So are you planning to expand on this and make it the actual normative basis for parsing the manifest? Or will it continue to be a non-normative note?

Non-normative.

I don't really see the point of having this,

I wanted to have a quick alternative to the IDL index - as way for seeing the types.

when we already have a link out to it. It kind-of endorses it more, which might be a bad thing if it routinely gets out of date.

I've updated the PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE to prevent that from happening. It shouldn't get out of date as it's our responsibility to keep it updated.

It means there's a piece of spec that isn't controlled by this GitHub repo, and can be dynamically changed by a third party (even though it's in non-normative text). I'm weakly opposed to including it but OK with allowing.

We have a good working relationship with the schema folks - so we can ask those folks to always check with us first before updating it.

[mgiuca]

I see, so this is basically going to be the "readable" copy of the spec, when WebIDL is deleted, and the rest of the spec will go back to algorithms?

I'm not super happy with that approach (I thought when you mentioned it previously, you were going to have a normative description of the data structure which gets processed algorithmically). I'm afraid that the JSON Schema will get subtly out of date, even with a reminder in the CL description (not from forgetting to update it, but from making subtle differences between the algorithm and the JSON schema).

But anyway, I'm OK with including the JSON Schema in this doc.

[marcoscaceres]

Let's try it out. If things go bad, we can rip it out again and just link. I'm also mindful of it getting out date, which is why I also put it into <details> to lessen its importance.