Jason Desrosiers

> I wonder if these need to be optional tests because an implementation may not support (e.g.) draft 7. Yeah, that's the reason I haven't contributed tests like this a...

> Maybe it just needs a link to 9.3.3 (add "as per section 9.3.3" or something)? I think this just needs to say, "A schema _resource_ MUST successfully validate against...

That's my understanding of the concept, but reading through the spec, I don't think that's made clear. It's implied in 9.3.3, but that's all. I think referring to a "Schema...

I think this is how "integer" support should have been defined in the first place. As much as I'd like to see this fixed, I'm not sure it's worth the...

> There should probably be an ADR The ADR I'm going to write will cover that we are committing to forward compatibility, but I don't think it will cover the...

No. Something like that would be out of scope for JSON Pointer. JSON Pointer is a very simple tool that does one thing, pointing to a location in a JSON...

That is certainly something that people often want to do and JSON Schema can't express, but I don't see how a JSON Pointer returning a list of object keys solves...

I see what you're saying. You'd like to do something like this. ```json { "type": "object", "properties": { "items": { "enum": { "$ref": "$data$#/itemConf$keys$" } } } } ``` I...

It's not a matter of whether or not we think it will be useful. I think it's pretty clear that it is. It's just a matter of someone proposing a...

I don't think the intention was to imply that these behaviors are mutually exclusive. If that's not clear enough, we should fix that. I'd also be in favor of dropping...