Strengthen requirements on optional vocabularies and unknown keywords #1376
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This strengthens two SHOULDs to MUSTS: * Implementations MUST proceed with processing schemas using unrecognized optional vocabularies * Implementations MUST collect unknown keywords as annotations if such collection is supported and not disabled
|
See also https://github.com/orgs/json-schema-org/discussions/295#discussioncomment-4721326, issue #1340, and https://github.com/orgs/json-schema-org/discussions/241 for related ideas, some of which are compatible and others are incompatible. |
awwright
approved these changes
Mar 27, 2023
|
Closing this as
As such, this PR is moot. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This fixes #1300, and has been posted to clear up confusion over the difference between it and #1294 / #1295.
The explanation is in #1300, and if there is any controversy over this, or a desire to split the the two SHOULD-to-MUST changes to accept one and reject the other, then this draft PR should be closed unmerged and the discussion should take place in issue #1300. If this happens, anyone should feel free to close this- there is no need to check with me first.
This strengthens two SHOULDs to MUSTS: