{"action":"opened","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/json-api/json-api/issues/489","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/json-api/json-api/issues/489/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/json-api/json-api/issues/489/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/json-api/json-api/issues/489/events","html_url":"https://github.com/json-api/json-api/issues/489","id":62532295,"number":489,"title":"Can the top level \"data\" key and resource object \"id\", \"type\" members be considered final?","user":{"login":"yellow5","id":22482,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/22482?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/yellow5","html_url":"https://github.com/yellow5","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/yellow5/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/yellow5/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/yellow5/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/yellow5/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/yellow5/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/yellow5/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/yellow5/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/yellow5/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/yellow5/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"milestone":null,"comments":0,"created_at":"2015-03-17T22:24:08Z","updated_at":"2015-03-17T22:24:08Z","closed_at":null,"body":"Many steps have been taken recently toward version 1.0.0 of the JSON-API spec. Kudos to all for your hard work!\r\n\r\nAt the start of the year, I started introducing JSON-API at my day job as the proposed standard to follow for building out internal JSON micro-resources. Currently they use RC1 format.\r\n\r\nWith RC2 (#341), some changes took place, including:\r\n\r\n1. Top-level key name \"data\" instead of \"pluralized_resource\"\r\n2. Top-level resource members \"id\" and \"type\" (particularly the latter)\r\n\r\nFirst off, I have no hard feelings! :) When I started implementing it, the standard was described as a WIP; I recommended following the standard with the understanding that the spec could change.\r\n\r\nOkay, back to the issue...\r\n\r\nMore recently, RC3 (#483) was merged in. It says:\r\n\r\n> Only very small and very well-justified changes will be accepted after this.\r\n\r\nIs it safe to say that the changes previously mentioned (top-level key \"data\", top-level resource members \"id\", \"type\") will remain unchanged?\r\n\r\nThanks in advance for any insight that you can provide!"}}