{"action":"created","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/json-api/json-api/issues/850","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/json-api/json-api/issues/850/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/json-api/json-api/issues/850/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/json-api/json-api/issues/850/events","html_url":"https://github.com/json-api/json-api/issues/850","id":102266479,"number":850,"title":"Recommendation for dasherizing (kebab-case-ing) namespaced object, such as `Admin::User`","user":{"login":"bf4","id":142914,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/142914?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/bf4","html_url":"https://github.com/bf4","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bf4/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bf4/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bf4/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bf4/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bf4/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bf4/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bf4/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bf4/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bf4/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"milestone":null,"comments":25,"created_at":"2015-08-21T00:16:38Z","updated_at":"2015-12-20T11:44:30Z","closed_at":null,"body":"JSON API recommends dasherized keys, so an `AdminUser` would be represented by `admin-user`. But, does/should JSON API have an opinion on namespaced objects? That `Admin::User` would be dasherized as `admin/user`?  (That's the result in Rails of `\"Admin::User\".underscore.dasherize`)"},"comment":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/json-api/json-api/issues/comments/166111572","html_url":"https://github.com/json-api/json-api/issues/850#issuecomment-166111572","issue_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/json-api/json-api/issues/850","id":166111572,"user":{"login":"bintoro","id":7081785,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/7081785?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/bintoro","html_url":"https://github.com/bintoro","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bintoro/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bintoro/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bintoro/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bintoro/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bintoro/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bintoro/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bintoro/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bintoro/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bintoro/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"created_at":"2015-12-20T11:44:30Z","updated_at":"2015-12-20T11:44:30Z","body":"> I don't see a reason to unreserve the `:` (or anything else) when an application can repurpose an existing unreserved character.\r\n\r\nExisting unreserved character such an emoji? The problem is that all common delimiter characters *are* reserved, which is highly annoying.\r\n\r\nReleasing one character for the opaque, app-specific namespacing variant doesn't preclude the spec from implementing generic namespacing later using some other character.\r\n"}}