Ben Hutton

I'm not sure we actually NEED to change the spec. I think we read it wrong... See https://github.com/json-schema-org/json-schema-spec/issues/1172#issuecomment-1049686478

@gregsdennis Given your second comment, do you still feel your previous comment stands? > Are we sure that we want to push this for the 2020-12 patch? It's a change...

Sorry, I didn't qualify my question. THIS PR would be a change in behavior, sure. Do you however believe that a clarification of interpritations (as per https://github.com/json-schema-org/json-schema-spec/pull/1154#issuecomment-1049687143) would be a...

Right. I'd really like to keep on topic as possible, opening a new issue for the next feature draft where we want to discuss further other topics. As an aside,...

> Okay, given the discussion in #1172, I think this PR can be replaced with a different patch that clarifies the annotation behaviour of additionalProperties and unevaluatedProperties... @karenetheridge As such,...

I believe this will also upload `requirements.txt` to the artifact bundle.

I decided to merge this immediatly as our current CI simply doesn't work.

I've removed this issue form the draft-future milestone because I don't feel anyone has clearly defined what a resolution to this issue would look like. I think further discussion is...

> The spec already says that relative JSON pointers must start with positive integers. > > Maybe we just remove "non-negative". It quantifies in the ABNF... > "0", or digits...

You do not believe zero is a non-negative integer? We changed the language from "positive" to "non-negative" so as to include zero.