Vladimír Gorej

Thanks I get it now. Examples speaks he truth ;] So the tooling behaves as the specification mandates. And that's good. Wouldn't the whole issue with reusable `Channel Item Object`...

> I don't think so, because as I wrote in the first comment: Let me explain what I mean on an example. I'm talking about going with more how OpenAPI...

PR has been redo into absolute URLs only support.

@fmvilas @derberg @dalelane can you please have a final look at this? Thanks!

> This is a very good question, I was wondering about the $ref field too. OpenAPI has the same issue with Operation Objects. Could we either I guess you mean...

Just pinging here. Clarification from the spec authors can help move this forward. After the clarification and further discussion I can issue a PR to amend the specification.

@smoya I've read the intention driven proposals and the [article](https://www.asyncapi.com/blog/intent-driven-api). IMHO it's completely separate from this issue. It should be clear from specification how to create the implementation, which is...

> However, I agree specification should contain, at least, a statement on how bundling is expected to work on an AsyncAPI document. I would suggest we extend the scope to...

This is now limited to version to specification version `>= 2.0.0

PR attached to this issue is: https://github.com/asyncapi/spec/pull/779