Jason Desrosiers

I know we're considering this blocked for now. I'm not considering what I just pushed as the direction we've chosen. Take it as an example. We can still change direction....

I like this idea. I've suggested before that I'd like to see that all keywords have a URI and that vocabularies are just mappings of plain keyword names to the...

> you're also suggesting we use URIs for custom SVA keywords, which is counter to the decision to use `x-`. I don't think that's what's being proposed. At least, that's...

> ① What if an update to the specification introduces a new annotation keyword? Older implementations ought to be able to ignore it for assertion purposes. The most straightforward way...

> Why not just require the same prefix for all SVAs? Let's say I introduce `x-foo` in my schema that's a string with certain semantics. Later, JSON Schema adds `x-foo`...

> The format must be `[base-iri]#[keyword]`, where `base-iri` must be an absolute IRI that indicates the ad-hoc vocab for the keyword. I don't think it's necessary to prescribe a URI...

> Would this just be a way to map a non-URI keyword to a URI keyword? Or is this useful for other purposes? This was just an example of a...

> are you merely suggesting that using a vocab-qualified keyword URI be allowed in place of _creating a custom meta-schema to include the vocab just so I can use that...

> So the keyword doesn't necessarily need to be in a vocab up front. Nuance. :+1: > But later if the user wants to create a vocab with that keyword,...

> Is there _sufficient_ value for the effort? That's a good question. Ultimately, this only enables features that power users would use and only fixes problems that power users will...