Enforce consistency in supported draft display for libraries #147
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is great! I started doing something like this (in the old HTML version) when we published draft-06 but never got very far.
I think removing that one 5 is the only necessary change. Explaining draft-05 is hard even if it's technically supported somewhere, best to focus on 4 and 6.
_data/validator-libraries.yml
Outdated
| license: Apache License 2.0 | ||
| - name: JavaScript | ||
| implementations: | ||
| - name: ajv | ||
| url: https://github.com/epoberezkin/ajv | ||
| notes: "for Node.js and browsers - *supports draft 4, draft 6, [custom keywords](https://github.com/epoberezkin/ajv-keywords) and [$data reference](https://github.com/json-schema-org/json-schema-spec/issues/51)*" | ||
| notes: "for Node.js and browsers - *supports [custom keywords](https://github.com/epoberezkin/ajv-keywords) and [$data reference](https://github.com/json-schema-org/json-schema-spec/issues/51)*" | ||
| draft: [4, 5, 6] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
While @epoberezkin can correct me if I'm wrong, I'm pretty sure that AJV's "v5" was draft-04 plus the various keyword proposals that were floating around when the draft-04 authors left the project. It's not entirely clear what it would even mean to say an implementation supported draft-05 as there was no formal way to indicate a schema used that draft, and the only validation change was adding clarifying "uri" and "uri-reference" as a format.
This moves supported draft information out of
notesand into a specific member of the object.Switches the relevant template piece to HTML (from Markdown) because it is more manageable.