From 041ab468a935c3735b6472952dd5cd45ed283962 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Stephen Mizell Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 17:05:03 -0600 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] RFC for moving some elements to utility profile --- text/0000-utilities-profile.md | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 42 insertions(+) create mode 100644 text/0000-utilities-profile.md diff --git a/text/0000-utilities-profile.md b/text/0000-utilities-profile.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..570dae0 --- /dev/null +++ b/text/0000-utilities-profile.md @@ -0,0 +1,42 @@ +- Start Date: 2015-12-03 +- RFC PR: (leave this empty) +- Refract Issue: (leave this empty) + +# Summary + +This proposes we move `extend`, `select`, and `option` from the base +specification to its own profile. + +Note that I'm calling this a "profile" versus a "namespace." This is pending +this [RFC](https://github.com/refractproject/rfcs/pull/30). If we do not go the +route proposed there, we can refer to this as a Utility Namespace. + +# Motivation + +The main motivation is to make the base specification as simple as possible. In +ever implementation we've created for consuming Refract, such as from the Parse +Result or API Description results, we have not needed to use any of these +elements. + +In light of simplifying, this keeps the base specification concerned with +primitive, meta elements, and addressability. + +# Detailed design + +This proposal is to move `extend`, `select`, and `option` to its own +profile/namespace. Once there, the Data Structure namespace would then +reference that specification as a dependency. + +# Drawbacks + +This removes functionality from the base specification, and therefore limits it +in some way. The original argument was that these elements were important to +have for all other namespaces, but this has proven to not be true. + +# Alternatives + +The alternative is to of course not implement this RFC. + +# Unresolved questions + +None at this moment. From 28a3bd6da43589e18031d9b2ad5788b096e019d9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Stephen Mizell Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 17:40:16 -0600 Subject: [PATCH 2/2] Updates per comments --- text/0000-utilities-profile.md | 6 +----- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/text/0000-utilities-profile.md b/text/0000-utilities-profile.md index 570dae0..109474c 100644 --- a/text/0000-utilities-profile.md +++ b/text/0000-utilities-profile.md @@ -7,14 +7,10 @@ This proposes we move `extend`, `select`, and `option` from the base specification to its own profile. -Note that I'm calling this a "profile" versus a "namespace." This is pending -this [RFC](https://github.com/refractproject/rfcs/pull/30). If we do not go the -route proposed there, we can refer to this as a Utility Namespace. - # Motivation The main motivation is to make the base specification as simple as possible. In -ever implementation we've created for consuming Refract, such as from the Parse +every implementation we've created for consuming Refract, such as from the Parse Result or API Description results, we have not needed to use any of these elements.