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

Relative vs absolute link edits #953

Merged
merged 7 commits into from
Feb 4, 2021
Merged

Relative vs absolute link edits #953

merged 7 commits into from
Feb 4, 2021

Conversation

cholmes
Copy link
Contributor

@cholmes cholmes commented Jan 26, 2021

Related Issue(s): #952 , #957

Proposed Changes:

  1. Clean up the relative vs absolute link section to just link to the best practice.
  2. Remove talk about static and dynamic catalogs, as those are now just in the best practice, not the spec itself.

PR Checklist:

  • This PR is made against the dev branch (all proposed changes except releases should be against dev, not master).
  • This PR has no breaking changes.
  • a CHANGELOG entry is not required.

@cholmes cholmes added this to the 1.0.0-RC.1 milestone Jan 26, 2021
@@ -253,10 +253,10 @@ STAC version. Otherwise some behaviour of functionality may be unpredictable (e.

## Use of links

The main catalog specification allows both relative and absolute links, and says that `self` links are not required, but are
The main STAC specifications allow both relative and absolute links, and says that `self` links are not required, but are
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Maybe The main STAC specifications allow -> The STAC specification allows

What is meant by main? Are there other specifications in play here?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'll work to clarify this. Catalog, Item and Collection are all technically their own 'spec', designed to potentially use stand alone, so that's all I meant. I was changing it to not seem like it was implying just the 'catalog' spec. But I see how 'main' is confusing.

Copy link
Collaborator

@lossyrob lossyrob left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM! Checked with PySTAC validation, looks like the jsonschema Python lib has no problems with it.

@m-mohr
Copy link
Collaborator

m-mohr commented Feb 4, 2021

As @jbants is also using PySTAC internally, I think we can merge.

best-practices.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Add uri-reference to JSON Schemas for abs.+rel. links Review and clean-up specs for consistency
5 participants