Jason Desrosiers

> Sure, have made the changes stating about "strict" mode as recommended usage mode. I think you've misunderstood. This is the line you added to your articles. > Note: JSONSchema...

@damodharanj Someone brought up that there's still an issue with your ajv disclaimers. I think this is partially my fault due to a typo in my previous message. I even...

First of all, thank you for providing feedback on the spec! We need it and we appreciate you taking the time. > not all of the applicator's contained schemas are...

I think I understand the proposal now. I think it makes a lot of sense for annotation collection as a whole, not just for the unevaluated keywords. But, I'd have...

> I'm not sure there's a generic way to know if a subschema evaluation is "required" or droppable. Some thinking out loud ... If the keyword validates as `true`, then...

My previous comment was mostly nonsense, but I think the example is useful. ```json { "type": "object", "oneOf": [ { "properties": { "foo": { "type": "number" } } }, {...

> Instead of renaming the category, I suggest leaving schema-to-web-UI and adding form-builder because we have some tools under schema-to-web-UI that are not form builders like Stoplight Tree and Stoplight...

> Rename schema-to-web-UI to form-builder I think this is the only suggestion from my original list that doesn't necessarily have consensus yet. I think schema-to-web-ui should be split into form-builder...

@benjagm, it looks like this is waiting for your confirmation that you're ok with the proposed changes. @Vishv0407, once we have confirmation, it's up to @DarhkVoyd if he wants to...

> If I go and create new Issues for each of those items, are you happy for us to close this Issue? Yes. Go ahead.