We have `title` and `key` properties that contradict the design principle to group related things into subobjects.
Also, `key` is not a very self-explonatory key name.
Talk:Core Platform Team/Initiative/Core REST API in MediaWiki/Schema
I feel like making something as intrinsic to the page as its title into a sub-object is pretty rough on the developer. I can live with it, but I'm not crazy about it.
Given a choice, I'd rather drop the `key` than make a sub-object.
Does this mean we would actually return both ever? I can hardly imagine a use-case for returning both
That would be nuts. I noted in the page that some properties would only be available at some endpoints. I took `source` and `html` out of the listing for large pages.
Why is the revision timestamp a part of the `small` view of the revision? Is it so important?
Can we specify that it's actually ISO 8601 with a certain resolution?
In the page history endpoint, and in the page representation, the timestamp was showing up a lot, so I included it in the "small" view. It seems like the closest thing to a user-readable ID for the revision.
I'll note the ISO 8601 profile.
There are no older topics