-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 9.2k
Description
While reviewing the spec, I've found some inconsistencies in regards to which of the various description fields allow markdown syntax. It seems some do, some done and I don't really see a pattern. For the sake of consistency does it make sense that we allow markdown for all description fields? The other thing that jumps out at me is that some descriptions state that they should be short, others verbose. Is that an artifact of the author of a given section, or has there been some thought put into?
Along those same lines, should we allow markdown for all summery and fields? (Perhaps some others)
Let me know if this seems reasonable and I can get a PR rolling.
Example:
info.description : A short description of the application. CommonMark syntax can be used for rich text representation.
server.description : An optional string describing the host designated by the URL.
templates.description : An optional description for the template parameter
path.description : An optional, string description, intended to apply to all operations in this path.
operation.description : A verbose explanation of the operation behavior. CommonMark syntax can be used for rich text representation.
externalDocumentation.description : A short description of the target documentation. CommonMark syntax can be used for rich text representation.
parameter.description : A brief description of the parameter. This could contain examples of use. CommonMark syntax can be used for rich text representation.
....