I don’t understand why the type of the object is in plural when I am a person or even type is in singular so I expect to be a single object.
We don’t require it to be plural or singular. We use plural in the examples because that’s most common.
From the spec: “This spec is agnostic about inflection rules, so the value of type can be either plural or singular. However, the same value should be used consistently throughout an implementation.”
@steveklabnik Why should be agnostic? English is not my first language and I see that type (singular) + plural word so weird, like something don’t match. I would like to see actually the documentation changed because even implementations like active_model_serializer gem take it as something very important. There is not way I can change it and it’s in plural
Is not there any consideration to get some extricted rule about this. I am getting a hard time dealing with English issue here and every language have rules.
Because then the spec depends on English grammar, and that’s a quite messy dependent spec
The inflector in Ruby on Rails constantly has PRs from people showing how it generates incorrect plurals. But they can’t be changed because they might break people who would be using the ‘wrong’ one.
@steveklabnik The spec should depend of English grammar 100%, I think everyone should code in English (My first language is Spanish), I really don’t see the point there.
I don’t support the idea of lock a spec/implementation because someone is gonna break. When there is an issue/improvement we should change it, the responsibility of upgrade/update the applications is not our responsibility.
Whatever is the case, it’s not a big deal but I would like to see the examples in singular it’s weird how you read type in singular and the value in plural.