Remove watershed and prefer new format #330
Draft
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Shane32
reviewed
Feb 14, 2025
Co-authored-by: Shane Krueger <[email protected]>
martinbonnin
approved these changes
Feb 25, 2025
|
Can we merge this one? I'd like to propose other changes but I'd rather not open too many PRs in parallel. |
|
I hacked it out quite quickly and didn't have time to proof-read it, I'm not sure it's currently consistent? |
|
LGTM. I find that it improves the readability of the spec compared to the current state and I'd be in favor of merging it. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This is an alternative fix to #327 and #322 that does away with the watershed entirely. I'm coming to believe the watershed was a mistake.
We:
Acceptheader (whilst noting that servers may support non-compliant clients).application/graphql-response+jsonin theirAcceptheaderapplication/jsona "legacy server"application/graphql-response+jsonapplication/jsonif and only if they want to support legacy (now non-compliant) clientsIt is currently a draft because I've not had time to fully vet it, just wanted to get my thoughts down - I wouldn't review the specific wording too deeply yet.