Jason Desrosiers

> I would like to see an actual decision on this documented in an ADR as soon as possible I agree and I propose we make that decision at the...

@handrews I agree with all of that. I was trying to keep the description to a bullet point so not all of the nuance is there.

I looked into this a bit. These schemas (even third-party plugins) are only used internally and validated using a single known implementation. That implementation uses AJV, which defaults to draft-07....

`requiredProperties` makes me uncomfortable for theoretical purity reasons, but I can also see that it could be potentially useful. I think this could be the first of keyword in a...

@hheavener-kyd See https://github.com/json-schema-org/json-schema-spec/issues/1112 and it's PR https://github.com/json-schema-org/json-schema-spec/pull/1144. It's an alternative to this keyword that solves the same problem in a better way and it's on track for inclusion in the...

The `draft-next` branch has been merged and is now closed. The merge target for this PR has been changed to `main`. Here are the recommended steps to get your branch...

I'd rather go the other direction and make `$id` and `$schema` consistent with `$ref`. The absolute-URI portion determines the document fetched from the schema-store and the fragment portion determines which...

@notEthan > what you suggest looks like a confusing alternative to `$ref` In 2019-09, `$id` was redefined as an embedded reference. They already are alternatives. This proposal doesn't introduce that...

First of all, sorry for hijacking this issue a bit, but I thought it was necessary to give an explanation for why I'd prefer to go a different direction. I'm...

> I did not follow your (Jason's) proposal for fragments in `$id` at all I'll drop it then. I might bring it up again in the future if I come...