Simplify tables in captions#130
Merged
thewilkybarkid merged 1 commit intoFeb 1, 2017
Merged
Conversation
Member
|
I've tried this as a test and it fails on elife-05375-v2.xml, the article with a table in the caption. I think it is because the table has an id attribute, and this schema does not allow anything but "type" and "tables". Is is possible to also allow "id"? Or, should I remove the id when parsing it? It seems strange for a caption table to have an id, but maybe it is important. |
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
We're currently stuck on a version of the PHP JSON Schema library that gets stuck in an infinite loop (causing elifesciences/api-sdk-php#98 and elifesciences/api-sdk-php#99 to fail). Newer versions of the library handle it correctly, but while we wait for webmozart/json#27 to be merged this simplifies the schema.
Use of
additionalPropertiesis problematic, so we haven't been using it, but for this case it's probably ok (especially temporarily, and hopefully can be reverted before 1.0 is locked).