Miguel Guedelha

Couldn't this be handled in a way that doesn't involve needing more work from your side @jodydonetti Essentially, you could release FusionCache related abstraction only packages, such as: - ZiggyCreatures.FusionCache.Backplane.Abstractions...

Hey @jodydonetti > Question: what would be the advantage of referencing the abstraction package instead of the main one? Would it be just to reference a smaller package or is...

No, that's the issue being reported. The document is not save-able (realistically publishable is what I actually meant, because it's always possible to save no matter what validation errors are...

Thanks for the update! Yeah the main thing would be, "single" block mode seems to be atm "single block type + 1 instance of said block", while in theory there...

Hi @kjac Yeah, no real oppositions to whatever name changes/preferences might be best for consistency sake. Just mostly ported over the custom implementation of the parser that we've had implemented...

Have made the amends now @kjac Using nameof should easily allow the data contract to update automatically if LinkType ever evolves in the future for whatever reason without needing much...

@kjac @AndyButland Should we instead simply remove the lines where the following is executed in the markup parser: ```csharp link.Attributes["type"]?.Remove(); ``` So that type is simply left in the markup...

## Answering to the reply to my feedback Sorry @kjac when I meant removing something that is there, it was removing a line of code, but removing that line of...

Hey guys, any further thoughts on this (inc my answer above?) I realise the v17 GA release is at our door at the moment, so just chasing up now, but...

Hey @kjac I think the superfluous type attribute is a minimal compromise to ensure backwards compatibility, so I don't see a problem with this happening. Otherwise, this looks great as...