Charles d'Avernas

@EnriqueL8 This is a good suggestion IMO. However, we should decide if that's for informational purpose only or not. As a matter of fact, such a schema could be used...

@tsurdilo Niiiice x) Ah yes, I hear you: I face the exact same problem in some private repos. The only "sane(ish)" way to do so, IMO, is by using a...

> @Neuroglia do you think doing this for the comparison examples: https://github.com/serverlessworkflow/specification/tree/main/comparisons would be beneficial as well? @tsurdilo I'm not sure. I must say I only did go once or...

@tsurdilo Aaaaah! Awesome! I'll use that to add some unit test before the commit that adds the reader/writer!

@tsurdilo Shouldn't this be re-opened?

@tsurdilo Any update on this one? Anyone willing to take care of it?

@ricardozanini indeed, that's why I wanted to squeeze it in before 0.9 which, as far as I'm aware of, not gave any of thoses

@fjtirado Replace all and that's done. Not such a huge compatibility problem imho. Plus, I don't see why you couldn't support both keywords before 1.0 if you don't want to...

@ricardozanini I agree totally, not saying it's obscure terminology or whatever, but is less reader friendly imo, and less ubiquitous: it could stand for constraints too, for instance

The other terms we have been using are on point (workflow, secrets, etc), perfectly explicit. Not that one, imo.