This repository was archived by the owner on Sep 24, 2018. It is now read-only.
Fix link relations for individual types and taxonomies #1846
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
`collection` should go to the collection of types and taxonomies, respectively. While imperfect, `item` is the best definition we have for the link to the collection of items.
danielbachhuber
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 11, 2015
Fix link relations for individual types and taxonomies
Member
|
I've seen a few PRs merged without review, was there communication somewhere else for peer review for these? I don't think |
Member
|
Agreed, we should DIY the relation here. |
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
collectionshould go to the collection of types and taxonomies,respectively. While imperfect,
itemis the best definition we have forthe link to the collection of items.
From #1829 (comment)