Jason Desrosiers

> given that we quite likely won't even put out the next revision under the IETF process, I don't think we should worry too much about what is in which...

I think identifying a dialect is sufficiently defined. > The "$schema" keyword is both used as a JSON Schema dialect identifier and > as the identifier of a resource which...

@handrews > just make the keyword name a fragment on the vocabulary URI That's exactly how I identify keywords now and it leaves me with the problem I described in...

@gregsdennis I think I see what you mean. I'm open to discussing alternatives that also solve this problem.

> can you confirm whether your concerns here were covered in https://github.com/json-schema-org/json-schema-spec/pull/1249? No, I don't see how those changes address this problem. There's still no indication in the output unit...

> You may have identifiers for keywords in your implementaiton, but JSON Schema defines no such identifiers. I see no reason why the output should include identifiers for keywords when...

> The JSON Schema spec is being submitted as an Internet specification Just to be clear, the only thing we plan to submit as an internet standard are the JSON...

@awwright We want `application/schema+json` to be a general purpose media type. Any given dialect is a profile of that media type. So, `application/schema+json` is just `application/json` plus fragment semantics and...

> I'm not sure what a "general purpose" media type means in this context XML is an example of a general purpose media type. It's a way to serialize generic...

> This suggests that authors can write JSON Schema documents that have no meaning. I've said multiple times now that the meaning comes from the dialect declaration. Does this not...