Host JSON Schemas for packaging specs as raw JSON files in this repository

[edgarrmondragon]

Issue Description

Currently there are two specs with documented JSON schemas:

• direct_url.json (PEP 610)

• build-details.json (PEP 739)

and a partial one:

• the build-system table

One possible omission is pylock.toml (PEP 751), whose schema is currently hosted in Schemastore: https://github.com/SchemaStore/schemastore/blob/f781bd9d5b2b75d1ebd82cd5cc9f8275fb330487/src/schemas/json/pylock.json.

---

I propose hosting all the JSON files for the schemas in this repo, and linking to them from Schemastore where that's required (i.e. for pylock.toml).

I can work on a PR to move the all JSON schema to their own files here, and another one to update Schemastore.

Thoughts?

Code of Conduct

• I am aware that participants in this repository must follow the PSF Code of Conduct.

[ncoghlan]

This seems like a good idea to me. Perhaps stored in a new https://packaging.python.org/en/latest/specifications/schemas subfolder, and then included via .. literalinclude:: directives so we're not duplicating the content in the prose docs?

We could potentially put an index.rst in the schemas subfolder (adding it as the last entry in the main specifications TOC, but I'm not sure that's actually necessary.

The main alternative layout I can see would be to try to group each schema with its corresponding prose documentation in dedicated subfolders, but that wouldn't align neatly with the existing flat layout of the prose specifications, so it doesn't seem worth the extra effort.

[edgarrmondragon]

This seems like a good idea to me. Perhaps stored in a new https://packaging.python.org/en/latest/specifications/schemas subfolder

Yeah, luckily they seems to already be the case thanks to

packaging.python.org/source/conf.py

Lines 86 to 88 in e3f4631

	html_extra_path = [
	"../extra",
	]

and then included via .. literalinclude:: directives so we're not duplicating the content in the prose docs?

👍

We could potentially put an index.rst in the schemas subfolder (adding it as the last entry in the main specifications TOC, but I'm not sure that's actually necessary.

That would mean moving a few files around but I'd try to preserve the intent of some of the changes made in #1807, so we can further discuss in the PR.

The main alternative layout I can see would be to try to group each schema with its corresponding prose documentation in dedicated subfolders, but that wouldn't align neatly with the existing flat layout of the prose specifications, so it doesn't seem worth the extra effort.

Agreed.