Julian Berman

Awesome! Very nice work, really appreciated, will definitely have a look. I'm sure it's in the paper which I haven't read, so forgive me for being lazy, but just in...

The last time I looked I think there were a bunch of stuff here that needed cleaning up after review comments, but will have to have another look to see...

Woohoo! This will be awesome. Will have a look tomorrow or so, but thanks this is a big deal.

Personally I don't think we need to spend any effort on making sure an implementation isn't gaming the runner, such a thing is likely to be quickly discovered (by the...

> Additionally, this is a first draft at a runner. It doesn't need to be perfect. Of course agree with this, but another thing that might be useful for a...

I'll give a shot to writing a hook for my own implementation this weekend I think, may have some feedback on the implementer-facing instructions after doing so (though they seem...

Nice, thanks! README changes seem fine to me, will have a last look in a bit -- did you also re-add the optional test not containing `$schema` for implementations choosing...

> I have a slight preference for Option 2, because most remote URIs do not need to be draft-specific even if the actual remote in use names a specific draft...

I think I probably agree about `draft-next` as well, if even just for practical reasons that it's quite annoying to have to go change every single test when `draft-next` becomes...

Do option 1 here, we merge, and then if you're still interested, a follow up PR for option 2 after. > Regarding draft-next, do we expect implementations to understand "$schema":...