Jason Desrosiers

I wasn't referring to any old conversations or any behavior changes. I just want to clean up the way the spec presents the concepts. That's why I said it can...

I'm the author of `@hyperjump/json-schema` and I work full-time on JSON Schema. I can provide a few insights. ## Compatibility The results you see in Bowtie are for ajv in...

Let's look at this part of your schema. ```json "allOf": [ { "properties": { "label": { "const": "GTIN" } } }, { "type": "array", "items": { "type": "string", "pattern": "^[0-9]{13}$"...

> It seems that you interpreted the JSON schema code in a direction which I did not intent. With the exception of the last schema, I'm not trying to interpret...

> I interpret this specification variant in the way that one property would become required while other properties can still be optional. That's not correct. The `oneOf` keyword asserts that...

> Does your specification variant express that both properties are available for the object “context”? Both properties are allowed, but only one at a time. Seriously, try it out and...

It seems we've yet again reached the point where I can't understand you well enough to be of help to you. I'm trying, but it's been really hard to help...

You're close to something that will work. Your missing `properties` at `/properties/context/oneOf/0` and `/properties/context/oneOf/1`. Any you'll also need to add `"additionalProperties": false` to each of those schemas. ```json { "properties":...

Unfortunately, this is one of the things JSON Schema isn't currently capable of expressing. We would need a new keyword similar to `uniqueItems`, but works on objects instead of arrays.

There was a purpose to decoupling the semantics of a vocabulary with it's syntax. For example, if you want to create a dialect that uses the `type` keyword, but not...