Austin Wright

> I don't think it's necessary to prescribe a URI format for keyword identifiers. Also, I very much don't want keywords to be coupled to a vocabulary. Yeah. I can...

It seems to me an empty array should be permitted, even if it has limited practical use, it does mean something consistent (it's not completely nonsensical). In particular, you can...

I don't think this makes much sense, `{ "type": "integer" }` is supposed to be an authoring convenience, as shorthand for ```json { "type": "number", "multipleOf": 1 } ``` ......

> Some web frameworks use arrays like this to specify query strings with duplicate key names. Yeah, another good example. Sometimes it's just less verbose to do an array with...

@handrews It's essentially the same thing as concatenation of characters or groups in regular expressions: ``` (ab|cd|123)[0-9]e ``` There's three elements being concatenated together here (one alternation then two character...

Yeah, `concat` does use subschemas in a fundamentally different way than any other "applicator" keyword. It's not just testing subschemas against some single instance then aggregating the results: Here, the...

> The problem is concat passing the initial starting point to the sub-schemas > The concat approach also involves a sequential approach to evaluating its subschemas As far as the...

While, practically speaking, this only impacts how people choose URIs for their meta-schemas/vocabularies (not validators that merely consume schemas), I'd like to point out the process is fairly well defined,...

> It is just not the intention of RFC 3986 to define a normal form Please elaborate on this point... I think it's fair to assume when spec talks about...

This isn't a bad idea, though I'm not sure it's worth the change, first because the current system isn't actually wrong, and two, normally with "flag" keywords like this, the...