What is the next most important area you'd like the RAML spec to tackle?


#1

Would you like to see support for more schema types, beyond JSON schema and XML schema?

How about multiple examples where now you can have only one?

How about a way to describe JSONP?

Let’s see in what direction you’d like RAML 0.9 or beyond to go.


#2

Would be great to see how to handle things like JSONP as well as webhook scenarios.


#3

You know that I am personally interested in “friendlier” auto-generated client APIs, as we discussed a while back in https://github.com/raml-org/raml-spec/issues/9 :slight_smile: The proposal there would allow for much cleaner client experiences for a lot of cases, but it probably deserves a lot more thought.

I think more examples is pretty important, too.


#4

Not to bring that discussion over here, but the “operation name” thing does have a an RPCish smell to it, and that is probably why it hasn’t got a lot of traction.


#5

I’d like a way to describe a resource as being streaming/server-push enabled, either because it supports long-polling or websockets.