Awesome! Thanks to you, @steveklabnik, and @wycats for working so long to shepherd this to 1.0!

(Now the fun starts of updating my library to be compatible with the new spec :))

Will review this in the morning 😊😊😊

Fwiw—and I definitely don't mean to draw this out any longer than necessary—I do think we should settle #379 before we officially hit 1.0, as giving clients certainty around the meaning of resource isn't something we'll be able to change later.

Will review this in the morning

@steveklabnik absolutely... no need to rush after all this time. Please thoroughly review the commits pushed by myself and @wycats tonight.

Please also keep in mind that hitting 1.0 rules out any further enhancements that require new reserved keys in resource objects. Notably affected: #383. To sidestep the problem altogether: #313.

Added a few more issues to the 1.0 milestone which we can review in detail before tagging.

Gotta fly for now ✈️

I humbly request to also consider the issue #415 (Attributes of to-many relationships) for inclusion to 1.0.

I don't think #415 is blocking 1.0.

That said, clauses about extra keys are starting to pop up all over the place, so I've filed PR #421 to move them all under a simple set of global rules. This also handily deals with #415. Not anymore.

@bintoro Thanks! Your PR #421 made me reconsider #415.

I hope there is still time left to suggest improvements for 1.0. If at all possible, I would like to have a chance to prepare a PR to present my proposal in #415 in a more clear form. I will definitely be able to do it by this Sunday, March 8.

This a teeny bit premature, closing for now.