Skip to content

fix reference to "undefined" in RFC6570 #5205

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Open
karenetheridge wants to merge 1 commit into
base: v3.3-dev
Choose a base branch
from
+1 −1
Open

fix reference to "undefined" in RFC6570 #5205

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion src/oas.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -4911,7 +4911,7 @@ parameters:
type: string
```

This example is equivalent to RFC6570's `{?foo*,bar}`, and **NOT** `{?foo*}{&bar}`. The latter is problematic because if `foo` is not defined (see [RFC6570 §3.2](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6570#section-3.2) for details on what is considered undefined), the result will be an invalid URI.
This example is equivalent to RFC6570's `{?foo*,bar}`, and **NOT** `{?foo*}{&bar}`. The latter is problematic because if `foo` is not defined (see [RFC6570 §2.3](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6570#section-2.3) for details on what is considered undefined), the result will be an invalid URI.
The `&` prefix operator has no equivalent in the Parameter Object.

Note that RFC6570 does not specify behavior for compound values beyond the single level addressed by `explode`. The result of using objects or arrays where no behavior is clearly specified for them is implementation-defined.
Expand Down