-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 281
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
docs: clarify how URL form is resolved #782
docs: clarify how URL form is resolved #782
Conversation
Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed! |
Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed! |
PR has been redo into absolute URLs only support. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
👍 Makes sense
Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed! |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This editorial change definitely makes sense. Our JSON Schema is also aligned. We have uri
format everywhere it is needed.
/rtm |
🎉 This PR is included in version 2.5.0-next-major-spec.1 🎉 The release is available on GitHub release Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀 |
Forget about the last comment saying it was released in version 2.5.0-next-major-spec.1. I made a mistake and it created this version but it should actually be |
🎉 This PR is included in version 2.5.0-next-spec.5 🎉 The release is available on GitHub release Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀 |
Recent comments about the release from the bot were added by mistake. More details in #899 |
Refs #674
Along with the clarification of URL resolution, I've made the sentence that describes the fact that the value is URL consistent within the spec. This makes it possible to identify all
URL forms
within the specification using native browser search capability (CTRL+F).