Open MikeRalphson opened 6 years ago
@MikeRalphson , I like the idea of supporting usage contexts other than OAS. But in that case, I'm not sure if there's any reason to resist adding a raml1
context object for that purpose. That would seem to be the most natural way to do it, and the most natural home for a displayName
property.
We could also add an enum for allowedTargets
, aligned with RAML, so we don't need any translation or interpretation between OAS and RAML.
And we could add a name
or ramlName
property, to allow more idiomatic naming of annotations in the RAML context. AFAIK, the x-
prefix is really an OAS-specific requirement.
@tedepstein That does sound cleaner, I just wasn't sure if you wanted to keep SEMOASA as 'pure' OAS-centric.
From a brief reading of the relevant part of the spec all we may be missing is an optional
displayName
.As this seems distinct from the
summary
, anddescription
maps 1:1.A
raml1
- RAML1 Context Object may not be necessary if theallowedTargets
can be deduced from whicheveroas2
oroas3
one is converting from.